Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00039885-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00039885-CU-OE-CTL BARTON VS UNITED DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/28/2023

Plaintiff Jennifer Barton's unopposed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.

This motion is not opposed. (ROA 35 – Defendant's Declaration of Non-Opposition.) Labor Code section 2699(l)(2) requires courts to 'review and approve' PAGA settlements. (See also, Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56.) The PAGA complaint and settlement agreement were submitted to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency in compliance with Labor Code section 2699(l)(1)-(2). (ROA 31 - Declaration of Douglas Han, at Ex. 8-10; ROA 29 – Declaration of Mariah Anderson, at ¶ 3 & Ex. 1.) The PAGA settlement of $225,000 is 'fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.' (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.) There are approximately 143 employees and 3,725 pay periods. The distribution of the penalties calculates to $96,611.36 to the LWDA and $32,203.79 to the aggrieved employees. This is consistent with Labor Code section 2699(i).

The Court evaluated the strength of the plaintiff's case, risk, complexity, likely duration of further litigation, the settlement amount, any indications of fraud, collusion or unfairness, and whether the plaintiffs adequately represented the state and public's interests. Here, Defendant produced data and documents regarding the aggrieved employees, from which Plaintiff's counsel estimated the maximum PAGA penalties and analyzed Defendant's potential liability. Counsel has significant experience litigating wage and hour class and PAGA actions. Defendant denied all liability and could have argued the recoverable penalties under PAGA were none to minimal.

The settlement is a good result and the product of arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel. Neither the LWDA, nor any other individual or aggrieved employee has objected to the settlement. Taken as a whole, Plaintiffs adequately represented the state and public's interests. In addition, the released claims do not include nonparty employees' individual claims. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 86; Han Decl., at Ex. 3, at § 2.) The attorney fees sought are reasonable and based on a little over 1/3 of the gross settlement at 35%.

(Lab. Code, § 2699(g)(1); Han Decl.) Given the number of hours Plaintiff's counsel worked on the case (over 300), this amount is fair and reasonable.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2964665  38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BARTON VS UNITED DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC  37-2021-00039885-CU-OE-CTL The requested costs of $2,434.85 are reasonable. The service administration costs of $10,000 to Xpand Legal Consulting, LLC are also reasonable.

The Court also approves Plaintiff's requested incentive payment of $5,000. (ROA 32 - Declaration of Jennifer Barton.) For these reasons, the Court approves the PAGA settlement and GRANTS the motion.

The Court will sign the proposed order. (ROA 33.) Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court's conformed order on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2964665  38