Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV33377, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33377    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Date:               1/31/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Alison Andrade v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. (20STCV33377)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Stephanie Ouellette’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the instant motion was not served on the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). Because plaintiff is seeking approval of a settlement of an action brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act, the proposed settlement must be submitted to the LWDA before the Court can approve the settlement. (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).) This submission can take place in connection with any Final Approval Hearing.

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

1.                  Plaintiff maintains that she investigated the facts giving rise to this action and conducted an analysis of defendant Urban Outfitters, Inc.’s potential exposure. (Bass Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff maintains that she analyzed time and payroll records and defendant’s written policies and procedures. (Bass Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not state where she obtained these documents. Plaintiff does not attempt to quantify how much documentation she reviewed. Accordingly, it is unclear whether plaintiff’s investigation and discovery were sufficient for counsel to act intelligently. (Dunk v. Ford Motor. Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)

2.                  The settlement agreement states that in any dispute about a Settlement Class Member’s workweeks, defendant will decide whether the challenge shall be accepted. (Settlement ¶ 77.) However, the Class Notice states that the Settlement Administrator will resolve any dispute. (Ex. A to Settlement at 4.) The settlement agreement appears to be inconsistent with the Class Notice.

3.                  The settlement agreement states that any Settlement Class Member who fails to send a written objection within the time set forth in the agreement “shall be deemed to have waived any objections.” (Settlement ¶ 54.) However, the Class Notice states that Class Members participating in the settlement can verbally object at the Final Approval Hearing. (Ex. A to Settlement at 8.) Because the Final Approval Hearing is likely to take place after the time to submit a written objection, the settlement agreement appears to be inconsistent with the Class Notice.

4.                  The reference to the Unclaimed Property Law is unclear, as this law is found in Code of Civil Procedure § 1500 et seq., not Civil Code § 1500 et seq. (Settlement ¶ 84).

Plaintiff shall ordered provide supplemental briefing and materials addressing the above concerns by ______________.  The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is CONTINUED to ____________ at _______ in Department 72.