Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 21STCV37078, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV37078, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37078 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 9

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Hon. Elaine Lu

Estrada v. TRC Companies, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 21STCV37078

Hearing: June 4, 2025

TENTATIVE RULING

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The essential terms are:

· The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $2,200,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

· The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) is the GSA minus the following:

o $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) attorney fees to Class Counsel, Moon Law Group, PC (¶3.2.2);

o $32,210.78 litigation costs to Class Counsel (Ibid.);

o $7,500 enhancement payment to the Named Plaintiff, Robert Estrada (¶3.2.1);

o $10,000 settlement administration costs to Phoenix Settlement Administrators (¶3.2.3); and

o $150,000 PAGA penalty ($112,500 or 75% to the LWDA; and $37,500 or 25% to the Aggrieved Employees). (¶3.2.5)

· Defendant shall pay Employer’s share of the payroll taxes on the taxable portion of the settlement payments separately from the GSA. (¶3.1)

· Plaintiffs’ release of Defendants from claims described herein.

The Court will sign the [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval Of Class, Collective, And Representative Settlement And Judgment that Plaintiff electronically lodged on May 12, 2025.

By June 18, 2025, Class Counsel must give notice to the class members pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.771(b) (which may be effected by posting on the Administrator’s website if consistent with the parties’ Class Action Settlement) and to the LWDA, if applicable, pursuant to Labor Code §2699 (1)(3).

By September 4, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of the settlement funds.

The Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for September 11, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour class action. On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff Robert Estrada commenced this action, and on August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action against Defendant TRC Companies, Inc., and TRC Companies, LLC (“TRC Companies”) for: (i) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2 and 1197]; (ii) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code § 1194 and 1198]; (iii) Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 and 512]; (iv) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Period [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512]; (v) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]; (vi) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203]]; (vii) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]; (viii) ) Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.]; and (ix) Civil Penalties Under PAGA [Cal. Lab. Code § 2699, et seq.].

On February 7, 2023, the Parties participated in an unsuccessful full-day mediation with Steven J. Rottman, Esq., after which they continued to negotiate, and with the mediator’s assistance participated in a second mediation on August 2, 2023 where they reached an agreement. A fully executed copy of the resulting Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on May 2, 2024 attached to the Declaration Of Kane Moon (“Moon Decl.”), as Exhibit 1.

On October 22, 2024 the Court conditionally granted preliminary approval contingent on Counsel addressing deficiencies with the Settlement Agreement, with which Counsel complied on January 6, 2025. The fully executed Amended Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Kane Moon (“Moon Supp. Decl.”) ISO Prelim. All references below are to the Amended Settlement Agreement.

On January 13, 2025, the Court granted Preliminary Approval.

Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered (see Declaration of Jarrod Salinas (“Salinas Decl.”).) Now before the Court is the Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class action settlement.

SETTLEMENT CLASS DEFINITION

· “Class Member(s)” or “Settlement Class” means all past and present non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in California from October 7, 2017, through the date the Court preliminary approves the settlement. (¶1.8)

o “Class Period” means the period beginning October 7, 2017, and continuing through January 5, 2024. (¶1.11)

· “Aggrieved Employee(s)” mean all past and present non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in California from October 3, 2020, through the date the Court preliminary approves the settlement. Aggrieved Employees may not opt-out of the PAGA portion of the settlement and will receive payment in proportion to the number of pay periods they worked during the PAGA Period. (¶1.2)

o “PAGA Period” means any time between October 3, 2020, through January 5, 2024. (¶1.30)

· The parties stipulate to class certification for settlement purposes only. (¶13.1.)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The essential terms are as follows:

· The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $2,200,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

o Escalator: Defendant has identified the number of Workweeks during the Class Period to be 44,656 as of June 16, 2023. If the actual percentage of Workweeks increases by fifteen percent (15%) (i.e., by more than 51,355 Workweeks), the Settlement shall be increased by the percentage that the actual number of Workweeks exceeds 51,355. (¶4.1) The Settlement Administrator states that the final mailing list contained 700 individuals identified as Class Members who worked a collective total of 51,355 Workweeks during the Class Period. Thus, the escalator was not triggered.

· The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($1,296,666.67) is the GSA minus the following:

o Up to $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o Up to $40,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o Up to $7,500 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.2.1);

o Up to $10,000 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o Payment of $112,500 (75% of $150,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.2.5)

· Defendants will pay their share of taxes separate from the GSA. (¶3.1)

· Funding of Settlement: Defendant shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount, also inclusive of the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of Individual Class Payments, by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than thirty (30) calendar days following Final Approval. The Administrator shall deposit the Gross Settlement Amount into federally insured bank accounts (i.e., FDIC) so that all money held by the Administrator is federally insured. (¶4.3)

· There is no claim form requirement. (¶3.1)

· Individual Settlement Payment Calculation: An Individual Class Payment calculated by the Administrator by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks. (¶3.2.4)

o Tax Allocation: 10% as wages and 45% as interest and 45% as penalties. (¶3.2.3.1)

· PAGA Payments: The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA Penalties (i.e., $37,500.00) by the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Pay Periods. The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. Aggrieved Employees assume full responsibility and liability for any taxes owed on their Individual PAGA Payment. (¶3.2.4.1)

o Tax Allocation: IRS 1099 Forms. (¶3.2.4.1)

· "Response Deadline" means 60 days after the Administrator mails Notice to Class Members and Aggrieved Employees, and shall be the last date on which Class Members may: (a) fax, email, or mail Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement, or (b) fax, email, or mail his or her Objection to the Settlement. Class Members to whom Notice Packets are resent after having been returned undeliverable to the Administrator shall have an additional 14 calendar days beyond the Response Deadline has expired. (¶1.43) Each Class Member shall have forty-five (45) days after the Administrator mails the Class Notice (plus an additional fifteen (15) business days for Class Members whose Class Notice is re-mailed) to challenge the number of Class Workweeks and PAGA Pay Periods (if any) allocated to the Class Member in the Class Notice. (¶1.41) The same deadline applies to workweek calculation challenges. (¶8.6)

o Class Members who wish to exclude themselves (opt-out of) the Class Settlement must send the Administrator, by fax, email, or mail, a signed written Request for Exclusion not later than sixty (60) calendar days after the Administrator mails the Class Notice (plus an additional fourteen (14) calendar days for Class Members whose Class Notice is remailed). (¶7.5.1)

o If the number of valid Requests for Exclusion identified in the Exclusion List exceeds 10% (ten percent) of the total of all Class Members, Defendant may, but is not obligated to, elect to withdraw from the Settlement. (¶9)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks: Any checks issued by the Administrator to Class Members will be negotiable for one hundred eighty (180) calendar days. Any checks that remain uncashed after one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of initial mailing shall become null and void. Funds associated with cancelled checks shall be forwarded to the Controller of the State of California pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law, California Civil Code §§ 1500, et seq., to be held in trust for those Participating Class Members and/or Aggrieved Employees who did not timely cash their Settlement checks. The Parties agree that this disposition results in no “unpaid residue” under California Civil Procedure Code § 384, as all payments to the Participating Class Members and Aggrieved Employees will be paid out, whether or not these individuals cash their Settlement checks. Therefore, Defendant will not be required to pay any interest on such amounts. (¶4.4.3)

· The settlement administrator will be Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions. (¶1.3)

Notice of Final Judgment will be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website. (¶8.8.1)
The proposed settlement was submitted to the LWDA on April 29, 2024 and in amended form on January 6, 2025. (Moon Decl. ISO Prelim, Exhibit 3; Moon Supp. Decl. ISO Prelim, Exhibit 3.)

Scope of the release:

· Effective on the date when Defendant fully funds the entire Gross Settlement Amount and Defendant’s share of payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Participating Class Members, and Aggrieved Employees will release claims against all Released Parties as follows: (¶5)

· Released Class Claims. Participating Class Members shall release and discharge Released Parties from the Released Class Claims and any and all federal and California state law wage-and-hour claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and/or causes of action of every nature and description arising from any and all claims that accrued during the Class Period and that were alleged in, or could reasonably have been alleged in, the Operative Complaint based on the facts contained therein, including, without limitation, statutory, constitutional, contractual, and/or common law claims for wages, reimbursements, damages, unpaid costs, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief. The Released Class Claims include, without limitation, California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 382, 474, and 1021.5, California Labor Code §§ 201, 201.3, 202, 203, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 558.1, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.3, 2699.5, and 2802, any category of violations identified in Labor Code § 2699.5, and any federal counterparts, California Code of Regulations § 11400, California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., any IWC Wage Orders, and any cause of action for (i) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2 and 1197]; (ii) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198]; (iii) Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512]; (iv) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Period [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512]; (v) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]; (vi) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201203]; (vii) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]; and (viii) Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.]; The following language will be printed on the reverse of each settlement payment check, or words to this effect: “By endorsing or otherwise negotiating this check, I acknowledge that I read, understood, and agree to the terms set forth in the Court Approved Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval and I consent to join in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) portion of the Action, elect to participate in the settlement of the FLSA claims, and agree to release all of my FLSA claims that are covered by the Settlement.” Upon entry of Judgment, Class Members are precluded from filing a wage and hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Released Parties for claims and/or causes of action encompassed by the Released Claims which are extinguished and precluded pursuant to the holding in Rangel v. PLS Check Cashers of California, Inc., 899 F.3d 1106 (2018). This release excludes the release of claims not permitted by law. In connection with the above Released Class Claims, and in consideration of Defendant’s payment of the Gross Settlement Amount and Defendant’s share of payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of Individual Class Payments, each and every Participating Class Member, including Plaintiff, will be deemed also to have acknowledged and agreed that California Labor Code § 206.5 is not applicable to Defendant and the Participating Class Members because there is a good faith dispute as to whether any wages are due at all to any Class Member. California Labor Code § 206.5 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT REQUIRE THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE OF A CLAIM OR RIGHT ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE, OR MADE AS AN ADVANCE ON WAGES TO BE EARNED, UNLESS PAYMENT OF THOSE WAGES HAS BEEN MADE. (¶5.2)

· Released PAGA Claims. Plaintiff, all Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged each and all of the Released Parties from any and all claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and/or causes of action for penalties under PAGA that accrued during the PAGA Period and that were asserted in Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice or the Operative Complaint as well as those that could reasonably have been alleged in the Action based on the facts contained in Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice or the Operative Complaint, including, without limitation, Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2699, 2699(f)(2), and 2802, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees shall be deemed to have acknowledged and agreed that their claims in this Action are disputed, and that the payments to them set forth in this Agreement constitute payment of all sums allegedly due to them arising from the PAGA claims and constitute settlement of all PAGA claims. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall preclude Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees from filing a complaint and/or charge with any appropriate federal, state, or local government agency and/or cooperating with said agency in its investigation. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees retain the right to file a charge with, and to participate in an investigation conducted by, any appropriate government agency charged with enforcement of any law and the right to engage in concerted activity granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees, however, shall not be entitled to receive any civil penalties for the Released PAGA Claims in connection with any complaint or charge brought against any Released Party for claims arising on or before the date Plaintiff executes this Agreement, without regard as to who brought said complaint or charge. (¶5.1)

· “Released Parties” means Defendant and all of its respective current and former companies, parents, subsidiaries, predecessors and successors, and their affiliated entities, and each of their respective spouses, owners, officers, managing agent(s) (as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code), directors, partners, members, shareholders, and agents, and any other successors, heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, any attorneys, insurers, and claims representatives. The Parties are aware of the Jennifer Russell, et. al. v. TRC Environmental Corporation, et al., lawsuit filed on April 3, 2023, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Butte, Case No.: 23CV00826 (“Russell Action”). Two entities named as defendants in the Russell Action are expressly not included in the settlement of the instant Action, namely: TRC Environmental Corporation and TRC Field Services, Inc.; and, any claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the Russell Action against the remaining defendant (i.e., TRC Engineers, Inc.) are asserted on behalf of plaintiffs individually. (¶1.39)

· Named Plaintiff will also provide a general release and CC § 1542 waiver. (¶5.3)

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A. Does a presumption of fairness exist?

The Court preliminarily found in its Order of January 13, 2025, that the presumption of fairness should be applied. No facts have come to the Court’s attention that would alter that preliminary conclusion. Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness as set forth in the preliminary approval order.

B. Is the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable?

The settlement was preliminarily found to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Notice has now been given to the Class and the LWDA.

Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

Number of class members: 700 (Salinas Decl. ¶3.)

Number of notice packets mailed: 700 (Id. at ¶5.)

Number of undeliverable notices: 0 (Id. at ¶6.)

Number of opt-outs: 2 (Id. at ¶8 [William O’Brien and Linda Smoot].)

Number of objections: 0 (Id. at ¶9.)

Number of participating class members: 698 (Id. at ¶12.)

Average individual class payment: $1,820.34 (Id. at ¶14.)

Highest individual class payment: $8,163.34 (Ibid.)

Average individual PAGA payment: $69.44 (Id. at ¶15.)

Highest individual PAGA payment: $227.79 (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the notice was given as directed and conforms to due process requirements. Given the reactions of the Class Members and the LWDA to the proposed settlement and for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs

Class Counsel requests an award of $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) in fees and $32,210.78 in costs. (MFA at 16:20-22.) The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) of the settlement amount in fees and $40,000 in costs (¶3.2.2).

“Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) Here, class counsel request attorney fees using the percentage method, as crosschecked by lodestar. (MFA at pp. 16-22.)

In common fund cases, the Court may employ a percentage of the benefit method, as cross-checked against the lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) The fee request represents approximately one-third of the gross settlement amount, which is the average generally awarded in class actions. (See In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 [“Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.”].)

Class Counsel has provided information, summarized below, from which the lodestar may be calculated:

Attorney	Rate	Hours	Totals
Kane Moon	$950.00	90.5	$85,975.00
Allen Feghali	$900.00	126.7	$114,030.00
Charlotte Mikat-Stevens	$675.00	57.1	$38,542.50

Totals		274.3	$238,547.50

(Decl. of Kane Moon ISO Final ¶¶61-68.)

Counsel’s percentage-based fee request is higher than the unadjusted lodestar, and would represent application of a multiplier of approximately 3.07x.

Here, the $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) fee request represents a reasonable percentage of the total funds paid by Defendant. Notice of the fee request was provided to class members in the Notice, and no one objected. (Salinas Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.)

As for costs, Class Counsel is requesting a cost amount of $32,210.78. This is less than the $40,000 cap estimated at preliminary approval, which was disclosed to Class Members and not objected to. (Salinas Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.) Costs include, but are not limited to: Two Mediations ($25,000), Filing Fees and Service ($1,958.27), Case Anywhere ($1,980) and Expert Fees [Berger Consulting] ($2,990). (Moon Decl. ISO Final ¶60, Exhibit 4.) The costs appear to be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to this litigation.

Based on the above, the Court hereby awards $733,333.33 (33 1/3%) in fees and $32,210.78 in costs.

D. Incentive Award

The class representative, Robert Estrada, seeks an enhancement payment of $7,500 for his contributions to the action. (MFA at 16:24.)

In connection with the final fairness hearing, named Plaintiffs must submit declarations attesting to why they should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount. The named Plaintiffs must explain why they “should be compensated for the expense or risk he has incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 806.) Trial courts should not sanction enhancement awards of thousands of dollars with “nothing more than pro forma claims as to ‘countless’ hours expended, ‘potential stigma’ and ‘potential risk.’ Significantly more specificity, in the form of quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs, is required in order for the trial court to conclude that an enhancement was ‘necessary to induce [the named plaintiff] to participate in the suit . . . .’” (Id. at 806-807, italics and ellipsis in original.)

Plaintiff represents that his contributions to this litigation include: engaging in communications with his attorneys, gathering and providing documents to his attorneys, helping prepare his attorneys for two mediation and reviewing the settlement. He estimates spending 100 hours on the case. (Declaration of Robert Estrada, ¶24.)

Based on the above, as well as the benefits obtained on behalf of the class, the Court hereby grants the enhancement payment in the requested amount of $7,500 to Plaintiff.

E. Settlement Administration Costs

The settlement administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, is requesting $10,000 for the costs of settlement administration. (Salinas Decl. ¶17.) This equals the cost of $10,000 provided for in the Settlement Agreement (¶3.2.3) and disclosed to class members in the Notice, to which there were no objections. (Salinas Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.) Based on the above, the Court hereby awards costs in the requested amount of $10,000.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER