Walmart $28.5M Class Action Settlement Approved
Table of Contents
Case Background
In December 2016, Roderick Magadia filed a class and representative action against Walmart in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Additional related actions followed, including the Garcia Action in February 2018, the Griego Action in March 2020, and the Guzman PAGA Action in October 2021. Each involved similar claims against Walmart.
Cause
The dispute centered on alleged wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs claimed Walmart failed to provide accurate payroll records, denied off-duty meal periods, excluded certain forms of remuneration from the regular rate of pay, and failed to pay final wages on time.
Injury
The plaintiffs—including Magadia, Garcia, Griego, Guzman, Marshall, Altam, Vega, and Gupta—alleged damages resulting from Walmart’s practices. They asserted that these violations caused unpaid wages, meal period infractions, and reporting time violations.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. They also requested restitution of monies withheld by Walmart under allegedly unfair practices. The claims were pursued both individually and on behalf of similarly affected class members.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Roderick Magadia
Counsel for Plaintiff: Dennis Sangwon Hyun | Larry W. Lee | Nicholas Rosenthal | William L. Marder
Defendant(s): Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Counsel for Defendants: Aaron Thomas Winn | Matthew Gordon Ball
Claims Against the Defendant
The plaintiffs asserted multiple statutory violations, including Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, 201–204, and 1199, as well as § 5 of IWC Wage Order No. 7-2001. Additional claims included violations of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, § 226, and §§ 201–203. They also alleged violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and Labor Code § 2698, et seq.
Defense
Walmart filed a general denial, rejecting all allegations and asserting that plaintiffs suffered no injury or loss. It argued the complaint failed to state a valid claim, was barred by statutes of limitation, and precluded by doctrines such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, laches, and lack of standing. Walmart further claimed plaintiffs had not complied with PAGA’s notice and exhaustion requirements.
Additionally, Walmart asserted it acted in good faith, complied with all applicable laws, and provided timely, legally compliant meal breaks. It sought equitable reduction of any penalties, contended that PAGA claims were unmanageable, and argued both PAGA itself and the penalties sought were unconstitutional. Walmart requested dismissal with prejudice, judgment in its favor, and recovery of costs.
Judgement
On July 22, 2025, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, granted final approval of the $28.5 million class action and PAGA settlement in Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. The judgment certified four settlement classes covering waiting time, reporting time, overtime, and meal period regular rate claims, and approved payments including $9.5 million in attorneys’ fees, $537,090.39 in costs, $509,000 in administration expenses, $30,000 for lead plaintiff Roderick Magadia, and $10,000 each for the other named plaintiffs. The court also approved a $2,137,500 payment to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency and found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judgment was entered accordingly, with a compliance hearing set for March 19, 2026.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com