Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00014701-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 12, 2024

03/15/2024  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) 37-2022-00014701-CU-OE-CTL PENA VS STRATEGIC OPERATIONS INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 02/22/2024

Prior to this hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to separately file the First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to ROA 24 to complete the record.

Plaintiff Edurado Pena's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.

This motion seeks final approval of the parties' proposed $362,205.07 wage and hour class action and PAGA settlement on behalf of 'All persons who worked one or more Workweeks for Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee during the Settlement Period.' (ROA 65 – Declaration of Nicol Hajjar, at Ex. 1, § I(U).) The proposed PAGA members are defined as 'All persons who worked one or more Workweeks for Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee during the PAGA Period.' (Id., at § I(B).) After review of Defendant's records, production of information and mediation, the parties reached a settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. (ROA 50 - Order March 23, 2023.) The parties later agreed to amend the order to address typographical errors in the notice. (ROA 59-60.) 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 $362,205.07. This amount increased from the proposed settlement in the preliminary approval motion by 3.49% in light of an increase in the total number of workweeks. (Exhibit 1, at §§ I(T) and XI(C).) Class Counsel is awarded $120,733.45 in attorney fees and $12,933.92 in litigation costs. Plaintiff's service award of $5,000 and the PAGA award of $10,000 (75% to LWDA ($7,500) & 25% to Affected Employees ($2,500)) are approved. The Court also approves $7,750 in settlement administration expenses to Phoenix Settlement Administrators.

The class consists of 225 Class Members. Of the 225 notices sent, 0 remain undeliverable. There were no objections or workweek disputes and three requests for exclusion. 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 no opposition or objections and only three requests to be excluded.

Plaintiff requests $120,733.45 in attorney fees, which is 33 1/3% of the (increased) gross settlement amount. A percentage method may be used to calculate a reasonable fee in a common fund case such Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047908 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PENA VS STRATEGIC OPERATIONS INC [E-FILE]  37-2022-00014701-CU-OE-CTL as this. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) This is more than the lodestar, but class counsel obtained a good result on behalf of 225 class members. Counsel bore the entire risk and cost of litigation on a contingency basis. Plaintiff's request for attorney fees is approved.

Plaintiff's request for litigation costs of $12,933.92 is less than was what agreed to and anticipated and is approved.

The $7,750 in settlement administration costs for services provided by Phoenix Settlement Administrators is supported by the Declaration of Kevin Lee and is reasonable and approved. (ROA 67.) 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 approximately 10.5 hours and effort assisting with the prosecution of the action. 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 released claims appear to be appropriately tethered to the operative 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.) Plaintiff provided the LWDA with notice of this case and the proposed settlement. (ROA 65 – Declaration of Nicol Hajjar, at ¶ 13; see also, Proofs of Service.) For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders The Court sets a status conference on September 6, 2024, at 9:15 a.m. in Department 70 to confirm the filing of the First Amended Complaint and completion of the settlement process.

The Court will: (1) modify the proposed order (ROA 68) to reflect the status conference; and (ii) sign the proposed order.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047908