Justice in the courtroom. Service in the community.

Cy pres Donors

Are you negotiating a California class action settlement with a cy pres component? If so, click here!

LATLC is reaching out to every lawyer and law firm which has engaged in class action litigation in any California state or federal court within the past 24 months, particularly in the wage and hour, food mislabeling, and dietary supplement contexts. Our hope is that you will consider recommending LATLC as a cy pres recipient on one or more of your cases in the near future, should the facts of the particular case support it. A member of LATLC’s Board of Directors will be assigned to work with you to ensure a smooth approval process. Included with this letter is LATLC’s Cy Pres Program Packet, which consists of the following: (1) Letter of Introduction to LATLC’s Cy Pres Program; (2) Literature about LATLC, including “What We Do,” “Who We Are,” “Who We Help,” and “What We Have Done;” (3) An informative article entitled Who Gets the Leftovers? Understanding California’s Cy Pres Doctrine; and (4) A sample Declaration In Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval previously used by several class action law firms to successfully direct cy pres funds to LATLC.

LATLC thanks the below attorneys for directing cy pres funds to our organization. The term cy pres is derived from a French phrase meaning “as near as.” When class action lawsuits are settled or tried, there are times that it’s not possible to distribute all of the money recovered to some or all of the class members. The cy pres doctrine allows the funds to be distributed to a nonprofit charitable organization to support work that indirectly benefits the class and advances the public interest. This significant support allows us to fulfill our mission to make a positive difference in the quality of life for people within the greater Los Angeles area, focusing on issues related to education, children, survivors of abuse, persons with disabilities, and homelessness.

$117,295 – Guttierez v California Commerce Club, Inc.

$79,416 – Guttierez v California Commerce Club, Inc.

$58,000 – Elias, et al. v El Pollo Loco, Inc.

$33,180 – Babayan v BLS Limousine Service

$11,678 – Babayan v BLS Limousine Service

$7,137 – Eubanks v Panther II Transportation

$46,349 – Romagnolo v La Bite

$18,000 – Solis v Hi-Tech Collision

$18,000 – Accor North America

$10,000 – Espinosa v Big Lots Settlement Fund

$11,263 – Van Norton v Associated Ready Mixed Concrete Inc

Twila S. White

Twila S. White
Board Member
Law Office of Twila S. White
| Email

$11,000 – Greenberg v Trade Settlement

Paul Kiesel

Paul Kiesel

Kiesel Law LLP

$7,770 – Kalbaklian v PSI Services

$2,380 – Ramirez v Z-Valet

David Mallen

David Mallen

Mallen Mediation