Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21PSCV00450, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 21PSCV00450    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT AND ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT is GRANTED.

Background

This is a PAGA case. Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the California Labor Code by, inter alia, failing to pay all wages, including overtime, provide meal and rest periods, pay all wages owed at termination, provide accurate itemized wage statements and reimburse for necessary business expenditures

On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff RICARDO REAL filed suit against Defendant EL SUSHI LOCO, INC.

On October 12, 2023, the minute order indicates that there were no appearances by any party at the Status Conference Re: Settlement.

On October 20, 2023, the instant motion was filed. (Proposed order is provided.)

Legal Standard

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) states: “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part [Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”)]. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the [Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LDWA”) at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” Any settlement of a civil action filed under PAGA must be “fair and adequate in view of the purposes and policies of the statute.” (O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1135.)

Seventy-five percent of all PAGA penalties must be distributed to the LDWA (See Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (i) [“[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (j), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws, including the administration of this part, and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees”].)

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (g)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny employee who prevails in any action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs . . .”

Discussion

The motion seeks approval of a settlement of Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties under the PAGA for a total settlement amount of one hundred five thousand dollars $105,000.00. Some of the specifics of the settlement are as follows:

-        There are 104 Aggrieved Employees covered by the Settlement.

-        The Settlement was reached through formal mediation with Jill Sperber, Esq.

-        Attorneys' Fees of up to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00), which is one-third of the Settlement amount

-        Actual litigation costs to Plaintiff’s Counsel not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8,500.00)

-        Settlement Administration Costs not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).

-        The Net Settlement Amount is estimated to be fifty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($57,000.00). From that, an estimated fourteen thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($14,250.00) will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Group Members on a pro rata basis, in proportion to the number of weeks that he or she worked for Defendants during the Covered Period.

Here, after having reviewed the motion and declarations, the court finds no defects.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.