Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00045276-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  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) 37-2021-00045276-CU-OE-CTL PAREKH VS COLLECTION SITES LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 02/07/2024

The Court will hear from the parties regarding litigation costs and timing of the PAGA Payment.

On sufficient clarification, the tentative ruling is: Plaintiffs Titiksha Parekh, Patricia Martinez Orozco, Fatima Galvan, Rosario Zavala Martinez and Maria Lozano's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.

This motion seeks final approval of the parties' proposed $1,200,000 wage and hour class action and PAGA settlement on behalf of 'all persons employed by Collection Sites, LLC and/or Medivolve, Inc. in an hourly, non-exempt position in California from June 17, 2017, through November 18, 2022. (ROA 64 – Declaration of Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, at ¶ 58 & Ex. 1 'Stipulation' at, ¶¶ 10, 11.) The proposed PAGA members are defined as 'all persons employed by Collection Sites, LLC and/or Medivolve, Inc. in an hourly, non-exempt position in California from June 17, 2020, through November 18, 2022. (Cottrell Decl., at ¶ 59 & Stipulation, at ¶¶ 28-29.) On August 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended Complaint. After review of Defendants' relevant documents, retention of an expert to calculate Defendants' maximum exposure and two mediations, the parties reached a settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. (ROA 70 - Order filed Dec. 4, 2023; see also, ROA 69 - Minute Order dated Nov. 9, 2023.) There is no opposition to this motion.

The settlement class is certified for purposes of settlement. The class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, including the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,200,000. Class Counsel is awarded $420,000 in attorney fees (to be dispersed between counsel as agreed) and up to $50,000 in litigation costs. Plaintiffs' service awards of $12,000 each (for a total of $60,000) and the PAGA award of $75,000 (75% to LWDA ($56,250) & 25% to Affected Employees ($18,750)) are approved. The Court also approves $22,750 in administration expenses to ILYM Group, Inc.

The Court requests clarification of whether the PAGA payment will be made from the initial deposit of the settlement or at later time after receipt of the quarterly payments.

The class consists of 706 Class Members. Of the 706 notices sent, 22 remain undeliverable. There were no objections or workweek disputes and two opt outs. The Court finds the settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable. (See, e.g., Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800-01; Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 3.769(g).) The reasonableness of the settlement is further demonstrated by the fact that there is Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3087859  52 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PAREKH VS COLLECTION SITES LLC [E-FILE]  37-2021-00045276-CU-OE-CTL no opposition orobjections and only two opt outs.

Plaintiffs request $420,000 in attorney fees, which is 35% of the gross settlement amount. A percentage method may be used to calculate a reasonable fee in a common fund case such as this. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) This is less than the lodestar. Class counsel obtained a good result on behalf of 706 class members. Counsel bore the entire risk and cost of litigation on a contingency basis. Plaintiffs' requests for attorney fees and costs are approved.

The Court requests clarification on the amount of costs. Different numbers are reported (not to exceed $50,000, $31,485.52 and $29,423.31.) The Court needs confirmation as to the amount of actual litigation expenses incurred. It is also unclear what will happen to any remaining funds allocated to litigation costs.

The $22,750 in settlement administration costs for services provided by ILYM Group, Inc. is supported by the Declaration of Cassandra Polites and is reasonable and approved.

Incentive payments to class representatives 'must not be disproportionate to the amount of time and energy expended in pursuit of the lawsuit.' (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1395.) The court must also consider the 'risk to the class representative in commencing suit' and any 'notoriety and personal difficulties' he or she encounters as a result of the litigation. (Id., at p. 1394.) Plaintiffs invested considerable time and effort assisting with the prosecution of the action, ranging from 20 to 69.75 hours. The incentive payments are reasonable, uncontested and appropriate to compensate Plaintiffs for their efforts.

As previously discussed in the preliminary approval motion, the Court assessed Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538 and found the released claims appear to be appropriately tethered to the Second Amended Complaint's factual allegations and do not extend beyond the scope of its allegations. (Amaro, supra.) The PAGA portion of the settlement also appears fair, reasonable and adequate in terms of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws. (Muniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.) Plaintiffs provided the LWDA with notice of this case and the proposed settlement. (ROA 75 – Declaration of Scott Wheeler, at ¶¶ 26-28 & C-E.) The Court will hear from the parties and is inclined to grant the motion.

Concluding Orders The Court will: (i) modify the proposed order to reflect any clarifications made at the hearing; (ii) set a status conference on September 7, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. and modify the proposed order to reflect this conference; and (ii) sign the proposed order. (ROA 84.) Plaintiffs are ordered to serve notice of the Court's signed order and this ruling on all appearing parties by March 5, 2024.

The Court sets a hearing on Friday, January 30, 2026 at 9:15 a.m. to confirm final payment has been made and the matter may be dismissed at that time.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3087859  52