Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV17283, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 22STCV17283    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Natalie N. Martinez’s Motion for Approval of Representative Action Settlement

Plaintiff Natalie N. Martinez moves for approval of settlement of this action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Labor Code § 2699(l)(2) provides, “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to” PAGA.  Courts review and approve PAGA settlements to “ensur[e] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) 

The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.  Plaintiff is represented by experienced counsel at Bibiyan Law Group, P.C.  (Bibiyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-13.)  Plaintiff’s counsel investigated the case and spent over 750 hours litigating this action.  (Id., ¶¶ 14, 21-24.)  The parties reached the settlement at mediation before mediator Mark Rudy, Esq.  (Chang Decl., ¶ 14.)  The gross PAGA settlement amount of $2,000,000 represents a fair compromise.  Allocating 35% of the gross settlement fund to attorney fees is typical in PAGA settlements and is fair in this case.

One issue, however, prevents the court from entering judgment.  The settlement is only between plaintiff Natalie N. Martinez and defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.  (Chang Decl., Ex. 1.)  The complaint in this action, however, names another defendant: Larry Marsh.  Plaintiff has not requested dismissal of Larry Marsh.  The settlement and proposed judgment only refer to Marsh as one of the “Released Parties.” 

The proposed judgment therefore would not dispose of the entire action.  “‘Ordinarily, there can be only one final judgment in an action and that judgment must dispose of all the causes of action pending between the parties.’ ”  (H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366.)  A several judgment can be proper under some circumstances.  (See Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577-578.)  Liability is generally presumed to be joint, not several.  (Civ. Code, § 1431.)  The parties have not established that a several judgment against only Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. would be proper.  The court therefore will not enter the proposed judgment pursuant to this motion. 

Plaintiff Natalie N. Martinez’s motion for an order approving the settlement of this representative PAGA action is denied without prejudice.