Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV22269, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22269    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Date:               3/14/22 (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.

On December 22, 2022, the Court continued the hearing and set forth concerns with the proposed Settlement Agreement. After reviewing the supplemental declaration of Atoy H. Wilson and the declaration of Brian E. Cole II, the following concerns remain:

1.                  With respect to the fourth concern set forth in the December 22, 2022 Minute Order, plaintiff maintains that the PAGA Allocation of $3,750 is taken out of the Net Settlement Amount. (Supp. Wilson Decl. ¶ 4.)   That explanation seems wrong in several respects.  To begin with, the PAGA Allocation is $15,000, with $11,250 (i.e. 75%) going to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the remaining $3,750 allocated to the Similarly Aggrieved Employees.  Further, the definition and calculation  of the “Net Settlement Amount” contained in paragraphs 1.22 and 3.18 of the Settlement Agreement, respectively, exclude the 75% portion of the PAGA Allocation (i.e., $11,250) payable to the LWDA.  Defined as such, the $3,750 portion of the PAGA Allocation for the Similarly Aggrieved Employees remains in the Net Settlement Amount.  Per paragraph 3.20, that Net Settlement Amount (with the PAGA allocation for employees included) is then used to calculate the Class Weekly Amount.  However, per paragraph 3.20, the $3,750 is also used to calculate the PAGA Weekly Amount.  Thus, by leaving the $3,750 Similarly Aggrieved Employees portion of PAGA Allocation in the Net Settlement Amount used to ultimately determine the Class Weekly Amount and again using the $3,750 to determine the PAGA Weekly Amount, the $3,750 is allocated twice.  The Court thus again inquires whether the employee portion of the PAGA Allocation should be excluded from the definition and calculation of “Net Settlement Amount” in the Settlement Agreement.

2.                  With respect to the seventh concern set forth in the December 22, 2022 Minute Order, under the “What claims am I releasing by participating in the Settlement?” section of the Notice of Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”), the Notice was amended to reflect that the First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. Under the same section, however, there are three other references to the “operative Complaint.”  This creates confusion and uncertainty. Considering that the operative pleading (the First Amended Complaint) dictates the claims that would be released under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the entire section should correctly reflect that the operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint.

3.                  The Court inquires why the definition of “Released Parties” stated in the “What claims am I releasing by participating in the Settlement?” section of the Notice of Settlement of Class Action does not match verbatim the definition of “Released Parties” set forth in paragraph 1.35 of the Settlement Agreement. For example, paragraph 1.35 of the Settlement Agreement, but not the Notice, includes “spouses” and “any other individual or entity which could be jointly liable with any of the Released Claims” in the definition of “Released Parties.” The Notice is not informing the Class Members of the parties who would be released if the Court were to approve the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental briefing or other documents (which may include,

among other things, an Amendment No. 2 to 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 9:30 a.m., in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse).