The release in this class action settlement was too broad.  Only claims that were or could have been alleged in the complaint–that arise from the facts the complaint alleges–may be released in a class action settlement.  Here, the release went beyond that boundary to any claim that related in any way to any of the facts or theories that the complaint alleged.  The case is remanded for the trial court to see if the parties can successfully reword the release to properly limit its scope.  The objector’s other contentions are rejected.  The settling plaintiff may release FLSA claims arising from the same facts even though the settlement adopts California’s opt-out class procedure rather than the FLSA’s opt-in procedure.  The FLSA’s procedure governs who can be a plaintiff not the scope of a permissible release.  Also, the settling plaintiff may release PAGA claims that accrued outside the limitations period applicable to the named plaintiff’s claim.  Limitations is an affirmative defense that the defendant can waive in settlement.  Finally, the mere fact that the defendant settled with the plaintiff in this action rather than also with plaintiffs in two other parallel class actions does not, in itself, show that the settlement was collusive or resulted from a reverse auction.  The fees sought by and awarded to plaintiff’s counsel were not excessive.  Since the objector presented no evidence of collusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the objector’s request for discovery regarding collusion.