Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV22269, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22269    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Date:               8/11/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Luis Garcia v. Car Aroma Supplies, Inc. (20STCV22269)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Luis Garcia’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is DENIED.

Plaintiff moves for an order granting approval of preliminary class action settlement. However, the operative pleading in this matter sets forth claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). No class action claims were asserted. In the instant motion, plaintiff states that, on July 21, 2022, a First Amended Complaint asserting class action claims was filed. (Mtn. at 1:7-11; Wilson Decl. ¶ 4.) That is false; no such First Amended Complaint was filed.  Indeed, as noted by defendant in its July 29, 2022 response to the motion, which was served on plaintiff that same day, defendant was “still await[ing] the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as indicated in Plaintiff’s Motion and the filing of which is contingent upon the parties’ settlement agreement and ability to effectuate preliminary approval of it.”  (Def. Position Statement at 1.)  Even with the benefit of defendant’s clear notice to plaintiff, no First Amended Complaint has been filed.  Because plaintiff seeks the Court’s approval of a class settlement in a case in which no class action is asserted, the motion is DENIED.

Further, the Court inquires of plaintiff whether there is any good cause not to dismiss this matter pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), issued December 15, 2021 upon receipt of plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, filed November 24, 2021.  In plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement, plaintiff represented that a request for dismissal would be filed no later than February 22, 2022.  That turned out to be false.

Instead, this Court notes that, at the March 11, 2022 hearing on the Court’s Order to Show Cause, counsel for plaintiff (Laura Theriault) represented to this Court that additional time was needed to effectuate the settlement so that plaintiff could seek the Court’s approval of preliminary approval of a class settlement.  When the Court pointed out that the operative pleading asserted only PAGA claims, plaintiff’s counsel had no explanation regarding the status of the case or nature of the settlement.  (See 3/11/22 Minute Order [“Counsel for plaintiff appears to have no meaningful knowledge about the case”].)  Despite the lack of good cause, the Court did not dismiss the action and continued the hearing on the Order to Show Cause to April 20, 2022, warning plaintiff that “[t]he case will be dismissed on the next court date if no good cause is given as to why the case should remain open.”  (3/11/22 Minute Order.)

At the April 20, 2022 hearing on the Court’s Order to Show Cause, counsel for plaintiff (Atoy Wilson) confirmed certain representations made in the parties’ April 19, 2022 “Stipulation to Continue Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal,” specifically, that the settlement includes resolution of PAGA and class action claims and that the parties stipulated to the filing of a First Amended Complaint asserting class action claims.  Indeed, the Minute Order for that hearing reflects plaintiff counsel’s representations that “[a] First Amended Compliant is to be filed pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (4/20/22 Minute Order.)  Further, the Court notes that plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that motions for the requisite court approvals would be filed within thirty (30) days thereof.  That, too, turned out to be false.  Rather, ninety (90) days later plaintiff filed the instant flawed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement.  Moreover, so far as the Court can tell, plaintiff has yet to seek the Court’s approval for resolution of the PAGA claims, which are notably the only claims actually asserted by plaintiff in this action.  (Cf. 6/12/20 Complaint.)

In the absence of good cause shown, the Court shall dismiss this action.