Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV06679, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06679    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Private Attorneys General Act Settlement.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Arturo Retama San Agustin (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for: “Civil Penalties Pursuant to The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.” The Complaint alleges various wage-and-hour violations against Fresh & Ready Foods LLC (“Defendant”).

Now, Plaintiff brings a motion requesting an order approving the parties’ proposed settlement, pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (PAGA).

LEGAL STANDARD

Judges are to apply an appropriate standard of review of PAGA case settlements, by inquiring whether settlements are “‘fair, adequate, and reasonable’” and “meaningful and consistent with the purposes of PAGA….” Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 56, 64.

“If parties in a PAGA lawsuit agree to settle, the ‘proposed settlement shall be submitted to the [LWDA],’ and the ‘court shall review and approve [the] settlement.’” ([Labor Code] § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) Although our Supreme Court has stated that this provision ensures that ‘any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected’…, California courts have not determined the standards by which a trial court reviews and approves a proposed settlement.” Starks v. Vortex Indus., Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1124. Accord Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 (“PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.”).

In that regard, settling parties commonly advocate grafting class-action rules onto the legislative procedure, which involves somewhat analogous procedure. Fundamentally, a PAGA representative action is not fully a class action, because there is no collection of individual claims in a PAGA action, but instead a representative action on behalf of the state. Kim v. Reins Int'l California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 87.

ANALYSIS

According to the motion, Defendant will fund a non-reversionary, common-fund settlement of $651,000.00 that includes: Payments to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the aggrieved employees, attorneys’ fees and costs, and settlement administration costs. Kogan Dec. ¶ 21. The amount reportedly represents a fair and reasonable monetary recovery for the LWDA and the aggrieved employees, considering the disputed claims. Kogan Dec. ¶ 22. Further, counsel seeks $217,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, representing one-third of the gross settlement amount, on the grounds that it is fair compensation for undertaking complex, risky, expensive, and time-consuming litigation on a contingency fee basis. Motion, 14:2-3. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel requests $14,373.94 in costs, as an amount that is reasonable and actually incurred in this litigation. Kogan Dec. ¶ 61, Exhibit 3. Further settlement specifics are listed on pages 3 through 4 of the motion.

The settlement is based upon counsel’s legal research, investigation and payroll data, and follows mediation. Kogan Dec. ¶ 18. It also is based upon considering the risks of proceeding with litigation. Kogan Dec. ¶ 38.

The parties calculated an amount based upon an accurate formula. Kogan Decl. ¶ 24. For example, as to the claim of alleged failures to pay minimum and overtime wages, Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure amounts to $3,043,100. Kogan Dec. ¶ 26.

Hence, the Court finds that the subject PAGA settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and meaningful and consistent with the purposes of PAGA as to all of the affected employees.

CONCLUSION

The Court, having considered all applicable factors, grants the motion.