Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 22STCV17305, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV17305, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17305 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter. As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

This is a PAGA action seeking civil penalties for violations of Labor Code §§ 432.7 and 432.8 which prohibit certain background checks prior to making a conditional offer of employment.

The Court granted preliminary approval of class action/PAGA settlement. Plaintiff now seeks final approval.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Shoheil Davood’s motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Court will approve Plaintiff's Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment as filed in connection with this motion.

The Court sets a status conference September 23, 2024 at 8:30 AM regarding completion of the administration of the settlement. Once the period in which to cash settlement payment checks distributed to class members has expired, the administrator shall submit a report to the Court regarding the results of settlement distribution. If the Court finds that the terms of the settlement as set forth in the judgment have been satisfied, the Court will dismiss the action at that time.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Final Approval of Class Action and Representative Action Settlement

“The trial court must determine whether a class action settlement is fair and reasonable, and has broad discretion to do so.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.)

Here, in conditionally certifying the settlement class, the Court implicitly found that the settlement appeared to be within in the range of reasonableness of settlements and the product of arms-length, informed negotiations, subject to any objections that may be raised at the final hearing.

No objections have been raised in advance of this final hearing, and there have been no opt-outs. The Court hereby affirms the findings in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

As set forth in the moving papers, the $120,229.89 gross settlement amount will yield a net payment to the 575 class members of $75.37.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a PAGA payment of $10,000, with $7,500 (75%) to be paid to the LWDA, and the remaining $2,500 (25%) to be included as part of the Net Settlement Amount for payment to Settlement Class Members.) This allocation complies with Labor Code § 2699(i).

The Settlement Administrator administered the class notice. As noted, there were zero objections and zero objections. (Declaration of Yami Burns.)

The Court finds the settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable.

As to whether an attorney fee is fair, the primary factor for determination is whether the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the value of the attorney’s work. (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4^th 438, 451.) In fee-shifting cases, the primary method is the lodestar method; and in common fund cases, the primary method is the percentage of the fee method. (Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cagney) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4^th 1253, 1270; Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4^th 819, 833.) Courts have adopted a practice of cross-checking the lodestar against the value of the class recovery because the award is then anchored in the time spent by counsel. (Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4^th 19, 45, fn. 12.)

Here, class counsel is requesting attorney fees in the amount of 40,075.63, which represents 1/3% of the gross settlement value. This is lower than the calculated lodestar, which would be $161,103.00. (Bibiyan Decl., ¶ 15.) The request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,076.63 is approved. The request for costs in the amount of $9,813.84 as set forth in the Bibiyan Decl. at ¶ 18 is approved.

Plaintiffs request a $7,500 incentive award to Plaintiff and Class representative Soheil Davood. He submitted a declaration which justifies the award requested.

“[T]he rationale for making enhancement or incentive awards to named plaintiffs is that they should be compensated for the expense or risk they have incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” (Clark, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 806.) An incentive award is appropriate “ ‘if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit[.]’ … [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 804.) “[C]riteria courts may consider in determining whether to make an incentive award include: 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the litigation and; 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) [*1395] enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. [Citations.]” (Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (N.D.Cal. 1995) 901 F.Supp. 294, 299.) These “incentive awards” to class representatives must not be disproportionate to the amount of time and energy expended in pursuit of the lawsuit. (See Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 203 F.R.D. 118, 124–125.)

(Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1394-95.)

The Court will approve the request of a $7,500 incentive award to Plaintiff.

Administration costs in the amount of $9,500.00 are approved. (Burns Decl., ¶ 17; Exh. B.)

In light of the foregoing, the motion for final approval of the class action settlement is GRANTED.

Per CRC Rule 3.769, the Court is required to retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment and may not enter an order dismissing the action.

CRC Rule 3.769(h) provides:

If the court approves the settlement agreement after the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter judgment. The judgment must include a provision for the retention of the court's jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The court may not enter an order dismissing the action at the same time as, or after, entry of judgment.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(h)[bold emphasis and underlining added].)