Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV22269, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22269    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

  

Date:               12/22/22 (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 CONTINUED.

 

In reviewing the proposed Settlement Agreement, the court has the following concerns:

 

  1. Defendant will fund the Gross Settlement Amount in two installments: 1) an initial installment of $112,500 to be paid on the later of 30 days after final approval or 12 months from “today” and 2) $112,500 six months after the initial payment. (Settlement ¶ 3.17.) No payments to Class Members shall be made before the Gross Settlement Amount is fully funded. (Settlement ¶ 3.17.) The word “today” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether “today” refers to day plaintiff signed the Settlement Agreement (4/20/22), defendant signed the Settlement (6/20/22), or some other day. If “today” refers to some other day on or after the hearing on the instant motion, it is questionable whether it is fair, adequate, and reasonable for the funding of the settlement to begin at the earliest a year from the instant hearing.

 

  1. The failure to send a written objection does not preclude any Class Member from objecting for the first time at the final approval hearing. (Settlement ¶ 3.15.) The Notice of Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”) does not inform Class Members who do not submit written objections of the right to appear at the final approval hearing.

 

  1. The Individual Settlement Payment Formula referenced in Paragraph 3.19 is located in paragraph 3.20, not paragraph 3.21 of the Settlement.

 

  1. To determine the Class Weekly Amount, as opposed to the PAGA Weekly Amount, the Settlement Administrator divides the “Net Settlement Amount” by the total number of workweeks Participating Class Members worked during the Class Period. (Settlement ¶ 3.20.) However, the “Net Settlement Amount” appears to include the employee portion of the PAGA Allocation. (Settlement ¶ 1.22.) The Settlement sets forth a separate formula for the PAGA Weekly Amount. (Settlement ¶ 3.20.) The Court inquires whether the employee portion of the PAGA Allocation should be excluded from the definition of “Net Settlement Amount.”

 

  1. An additional 14 days to mail a Request for Exclusion or a Notice of Objection is provided if a Notice Packet is re-mailed. (Settlement ¶ 3.11.) The Court inquires why there is no similar extension for a Class Member to dispute the number of workweeks indicated by the Settlement Administrator. (Settlement ¶ 3.13.)

 

  1. The Settlement Agreement does not specify what happens if a Settlement Class Member submits a valid Request for Exclusion and a Notice of Objection. (Settlement ¶ 3.14.) The Settlement Agreement does not state which document takes precedence.

 

  1. In the explanation of the release in the Notice of Settlement of Class Action, the notice states that the Complaint is operative. The First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading.

           

  1. The Notice states that the attached Form A is the Request for Exclusion and the attached Form B is an objection form. The Request for Exclusion form attached as Exhibit C to counsel’s declaration is not labeled Form A. The objection form was not attached to the Notice or counsel’s declaration. A Class Member receiving the Notice may have difficulty identifying the documents as labeled in the Notice.

 

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental briefing or other documents (which may include, among other things, an Amended Stipulation to Class Settlement and Release) addressing the above concerns by no later than ______________. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is CONTINUED to ____________ at _______ in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse).