Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  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) 37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL HERNANDEZ VS EAST & WEST ALUM CRAFT INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 01/24/2024

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

This motion seeks final approval of the parties' proposed $212,500 wage and hour class action and PAGA settlement on behalf of 'All non-exempt employees of East & West in California from January 21, 2018, through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement.' (See, ROA 60 - Agreement, at ¶ 1.5.) On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging wage and hour claims and a PAGA cause of action. After extensive discussions between counsel, production of information and Defendant's records and mediation with (ret.) Hon. Jan Adler, the parties reached a settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. (ROA 69 - Minute Order dated Oct. 27, 2023; ROA 65 - Order After Hearing.) There is no opposition to the 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 $212,500. Class Counsel is awarded $70,833.33 in attorney fees and $10,000 in litigation costs. Plaintiff's service award of $5,000 and the PAGA award of $20,000 (75% to LWDA & 25% to Affected Employees) are approved. The Court also approves $5,000 in administration expenses to CAC Services Group, LLC.

The class consists of 92 Class Members. Of the 92 notices sent, 4 remain undeliverable. There was no objections or requests for exclusion. The average individual settlement share for each class member is approximately $1,164 with the highest payment at $8,550.42 and the lowest payment at $27.06.

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 no objections or requests for exclusion.

Plaintiff requests $70,833.33 in attorney fees and $10,000 in costs. 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 92 class members. Counsel bore the entire risk and cost of litigation on a contingency basis. Plaintiff's requests for attorney fees and costs are approved.

The $5,000 in settlement administration costs sought for services provided by CAC Services Group, LLC is supported by the Declaration of Jeffrey Johnson and is reasonable and approved.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051005  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HERNANDEZ VS EAST & WEST ALUM CRAFT INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00002587-CU-OE-CTL 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.) Plaintiff invested considerable time and effort assisting with the prosecution of the action. Plaintiff Hernandez estimates he spent 25 hours on the case. The incentive payment is reasonable, uncontested and appropriate to compensate Plaintiff for his 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 class releases 'do not extend to claims that are beyond the scope of the allegations in the complaint' and are 'appropriately tethered to the complaint's factual 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.) Plaintiff provided the LWDA with notice of this case and the proposed settlement. (ROA 75 – Kuhn Decl., at p. 3 [fn 1]; ROA 77 – Proof of Service on LWDA.) For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders The Court will: (i) 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 76.) Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court's signed order and this ruling on all appearing parties by February 21, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051005  43