Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV28667, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28667    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

          Plaintiff Andre Clarizio’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement

Plaintiff Andre Clarizio moves for preliminary approval of a class action settlement under California Rules of Court, rule 3.769.  “A settlement or compromise of an entire class action… requires the approval of the court after hearing.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).)  Courts may grant preliminary approval of a settlement.  (Rule 3.769(c).)  Courts exercise their discretion to determine if the settlement is fair and reasonable to all involved.  (Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.)  

There is one potential complication before the court can determine whether this settlement is fair and reasonable to all involved.  On August 19, 2022, defendant filed a notice of related cases for this case and Ricardo Lopez v. Guard Systems, Inc., No. 22STCV02112.  The court finds the cases are related.  Both include overlapping PAGA claims.  The proposed settlement therefore also affects Ricardo Lopez, the plaintiff in the related action, and his counsel.  They are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on this motion.

The court hereby continues the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to October 26, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. 

Plaintiff Andre Clarizio is ordered to serve the moving papers and notice of the continued hearing on Ricardo Lopez, plaintiff in the related action.  Ricardo Lopez shall file any response to the motion by October 13.

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Guard-Systems, Inc.’s Notice of Related Case

          Defendant Guard-Systems, Inc. filed a notice of related case for this case and Ricardo Lopez v. Guard-Systems, Inc., No. 22STCV02112.  Cases are related if they “[a]rise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).)

          The two cases are related.  Both include a cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.  (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.)  The two actions include overlapping groups of aggrieved employees.  Both actions arise from the same events, defendant’s employment practices and working conditions for its non-exempt employees.