Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  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) 37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL HERNANDEZ VS EAST & WEST ALUM CRAFT INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 10/05/2023

Plaintiff Carlos Hernandez' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.

The motion for final approval will be heard on February 16, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 70.

Please provide a courtesy copy of the motion papers to Department 70.

On May 11, 2023, the Court ordered the proposed first amended complaint submitted with the parties' stipulation be filed as of the date of the order. (ROA 15 – Joint Stipulation and Order filed May 5, 2023.) The proposed first amended complaint needs to be separately filed in the record in compliance with the Court's order.

Discussion The proposed class is defined as 'All non-exempt employees of East & West in California from January 21, 2018, through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement.' (ROA 60 - Declaration of Ryan Kuhn, at Ex. A – Joint Stipulation, at ¶ 1.5.) The Class consists of an estimated 87 members who worked an estimated 4,046 workweeks.

The proposed total settlement is $212,500. The settlement will be allocated as: (1) attorney fees of $70,833.33 (1/3 of the gross settlement amount); (2) litigation expenses of $10,000; (3) settlement administration expenses of $5,000; (4) a class representative incentive award of $5,000; and (5) a $20,000 payment to the LWDA, 75% of which will be paid to the LWDA [$15,000] and 25% will be paid to eligible members of the class [$5,000].

The Court reviewed the moving papers, supporting declarations, and settlement, and finds the proposed settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable for purposes of preliminary approval. (See e.g., Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800–1801; Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128.) Notable settlement provisions include that the settlement is non-reversionary and class members do not need to submit a claim to receive their share of the settlement funds. The parties' reached settlement after extensive discussions between counsel, production of information and Defendant's records and mediation with (ret.) Hon. Jan Adler. There is no opposition to the motion.

The proposed settlement preliminarily meets the requirements for class certification under C.C.P.

section 382. (Declaration of Ryan Kuhn, at ¶¶ 32-36.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022838  36 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HERNANDEZ VS EAST & WEST ALUM CRAFT INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL The class notice appears to include all relevant information and provides class members sufficient time to request exclusion or submit an objection (30 days). (Kuhn Decl., at Ex. B.) The released claims appear to be appropriately tethered to the First Amended Complaint's factual allegations and do not extend beyond the scope of its allegations. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.) 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. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.) Plaintiff gave notice to the LWDA of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement. (Joint Stip., at ¶ 2.2; ROA 63 – Proof of Service.) In addition, the settlement does not appear to be outside the ballpark of reasonableness. (Kuhn Decl., at ¶¶ 37-47.) The reasonableness of the settlement is preliminarily established after consideration of the risks inherent in litigation, including through potential trial. (Ibid.) Conclusion For the reasons stated, the preliminary approval motion is GRANTED.

The Court will: (1) modify the proposed order to include the February 16, 2024, final hearing date; (2) sign the proposed order; and (2) calendar the final approval hearing date. (ROA 61.) Plaintiff is ordered to separately file and serve the proposed first amended complaint as discussed above forthwith.

For final approval, the Court expects to be informed of the final hours worked and hourly rates billed by Plaintiff's counsel, the total attorney fees, costs and settlement administration expenses sought, as well as the total amount of time expended and tasks completed by the Class Representatives on the case.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022838  36