Wilburg v. iVueit, LLC

Background

Alice Wilburg brought a proposed class action and representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA. She alleged that iVueit, LLC misclassified her and other current and former iVueit workers, called “Vuers,” as independent contractors, resulting in underpayment.

Wilburg moved for preliminary approval of a class and PAGA settlement. The proposed class covers people paid for property inspection work, site photograph services, or other Vue-related work in California during the period from March 21, 2020, through the date of the preliminary-approval order, when the work was sourced through the iVueit App.

Settlement terms

The proposed settlement provides a gross fund of $635,000. That amount includes a $50,000 PAGA payment, attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the fund, up to $17,500 in costs, $25,000 in administrative expenses, and a service award of up to $15,000 for Wilburg. The motion stated that counsel planned to request $158,750 in fees, or one-quarter of the fund, and a $10,000 service award.

After the listed expenses, the estimated net settlement amount is $373,750. The parties estimated that about 4,000 class members and PAGA workers would receive pro rata payments based on the amount of work performed for iVueit, with a minimum payment of $15. The estimated average payment was $93 per class member.

Conditional class certification

The court found the proposed class satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The estimated 4,000 members made joinder of everyone impracticable, satisfying numerosity. The court found common questions about whether the workers were iVueit employees and whether iVueit misclassified them, which could be addressed with common evidence such as agreements and policies.

The court also found Wilburg’s claims typical because she alleged that iVueit misclassified her and the other Vuers under the same legal theory. It found no apparent conflict between Wilburg, class counsel, and the proposed class, and concluded that Wilburg and counsel would adequately protect the class’s interests.

The court further found that common questions predominated over individualized questions and that a class action was the superior way to resolve the dispute. Because the Rule 23 requirements were satisfied, the court conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3).

Preliminary fairness review

The court applied the preliminary-approval standard, asking whether the settlement was fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. It found that Wilburg and class counsel adequately represented the class, the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length, the relief was adequate, and class members were treated equitably.

The court found no indication of collusion based on the attorney-fee provision, a return-of-fees provision, or a “clear sailing” arrangement. It noted that the motion limited the requested fees to one-quarter of the fund, that no unawarded fees would revert to iVueit, and that iVueit retained the right to object to the fee request. The parties’ full-day mediation also supported the court’s finding that the settlement was not collusive.

The court considered the settlement amount in relation to the estimated exposure and litigation risks. Wilburg estimated potential wage exposure of $1,999,566.80 and potential penalties of $7,708,482. The court found the settlement amount adequate in light of comparable cases, the estimated payments, and the risks and delays of continued litigation. The court also accepted the proposed distribution method because each payment would be proportional to the amount of work performed.

The court did not decide at this stage whether Wilburg should receive the proposed $10,000 service award. It stated that Wilburg would need to submit evidence at the final-approval stage about her time, effort, and litigation risks, after which the court would decide whether the award was justified.

Notice plan and orders

The court approved the proposed class notice subject to two modifications. First, the notice could not require a class member who filed a written objection to appear at the final approval hearing. Second, the section about speaking at the hearing had to include the deadline for filing a Notice of Intent to Appear and explain that anyone seeking to appear virtually had to request that in the notice.

The court approved distributing notice by first-class mail when a physical address was known, and by email or text when it was not. The settlement administrator would remail returned notices with forwarding addresses and perform a skip-tracing search for notices returned as undeliverable. The court appointed CPT Group, Inc. as settlement administrator.

The court granted Wilburg’s motion for preliminary approval, conditionally certified the proposed settlement class, appointed Wilburg as class representative, appointed Craig M. Nicholas, Shaun Markley, and Jake W. Schulte of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP as class counsel, approved the modified notice, and set deadlines for notice, objections, opt-outs, payment challenges, and the fee and service-award motion. The court set the final approval hearing for March 5, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in San Francisco. The order granted preliminary approval only; it did not finally approve the settlement.