Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV13175, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13175 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 9
CHIDINMA
OLISAEMEKA, ET AL. vs LYNWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER, ET AL, Case No. 22STCV13175 [Consolidated with
22CMCV00121]
[TENTATIVE] RULING
RE: MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
The
Parties’ Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED as the
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The
essential terms are:
The
gross settlement amount is $205,000.00
The
court hereby approves the following amounts to be deducted from the gross
settlement:
$68,333.33
attorneys’ fees to Aegis Law Firm, PC and Lawyers for Justice, PC;
$20,203.90
attorneys’ costs;
$10,000.00
service award to Plaintiff Chidinma Olisaemeka; and
$5,500.00
for administrator’s costs
The
Court will make the following changes in the proposed order and judgment lodged
on January 8, 2025 before signing it: the
request for $30,000 in attorneys’ costs will be stricken and replaced with the costs
proven of $20,203.90.
By
no later than March 26, 2025, Plaintiffs’
counsel must serve this Order and the signed Proposed Order and Judgment
on the LWDA pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(l)(3) and file proof of service
of such.
By
no later than February 26, 2026, Plaintiffs must file and serve a
final accounting.
A
Non-Appearance Case Review is set for March 5, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9
re (a) proof of service of this Order and the signed Proposed Order and
Judgment on the LWDA; and (b) final accounting.
Introduction
This
is a putative wage and hour class action and representative action under the
Private Attorney General Act. Plaintiff Chidinma Olisaemeka (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that she and the aggrieved employees are and were non-exempt employees of
Defendants Lynwood Healthcare Center, Lynwood Post Acute Care Center, and AG
Lynwood, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants
violated the Labor Code and relevant Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.
On
April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendants in
the instant action, Los Angeles Superior Court case number 21STCV12881 (the “Class
Action”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:
(1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal period premiums, (3) unpaid rest period
premiums, (4) unpaid minimum wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) wages not
timely paid during employment, (7) non-compliant wage statements, (8) failure
to keep requisite payroll records, (9) unreimbursed business expenses, (10)
unfair competition.
On
May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a representative action against Defendants
asserting a single claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorney General
Act (“PAGA”) – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22CMCV00121 (the “PAGA
Action”).
On
August 29, 2022, the Court – presided by the Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos –found
that the Class Action – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV13175 – was
related to the PAGA Action – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22CMCV00121.
On
October 12, 2022, the Court – presided by Judge Palazuelos – consolidated the
Class Action and PAGA Action for all purposes.
On
January 11, 2023, the Court – presided by Judge Palazuelos – granted
Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the class allegations without prejudice.
On
January 19, 2023, the Court – presided by Judge Palazuelos – granted Defendant AG
Lynwood’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s individual claims, including her
individual PAGA claim to arbitration.
On
January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for approval of the PAGA
settlement. No opposition or reply has
been filed.
Legal
Standard
Labor
Code section 2699(l)(2), provides in pertinent part:
(2) The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any
civil action filed pursuant to this part [i.e., PAGA]. The proposed settlement
shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the
court. (Emphasis added.)
By its terms, Labor Code section 2699(l)(2) above requires the
Court to review and approve any settlement
of a PAGA claim, and the parties to submit the proposed settlement
to the LWDA. Thus, the Legislature has bestowed on the Court the responsibility to determine whether
the PAGA settlement is fair. The PAGA statute does not provide any direction
about what factors to consider when approving the settlement, but some courts
have looked to the class action settlement approval process for direction.
Federal courts, for example, have looked to class settlement standards as a
guide for approving PAGA settlements. See,
e.g., O’Connor v. Uber Technologies (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110,
1134 [noting that it would be appropriate to consider the factors discussed in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d
1011, 1026, in assessing whether a PAGA settlement is justified, including: 1)
the strength of the plaintiff’s case; 2) the risk, expense, complexity, and
likely duration of further litigation; 3) the amount and terms offered in settlement;
4) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; and 5)
the experience and views of counsel].
The
Settlement Agreement
The
settlement agreement provides as follows:
The
settlement is for a gross amount of $205,000.00. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3,
Exh. 1 [Settlement Agreement] at § 1.12.)
Of this gross settlement amount, various amounts are set aside for
expenses including up to $5,500.00 for Administrator fees costs. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at §3.2.3.) Up to $68,333.33 of the gross settlement
amount – i.e., approximately 33% of the total gross settlement – is set aside
for attorneys’ fees. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3,
Exh. 1 at § 3.2.2.) Up to $30,000.00 is
apportioned for litigation expenses. (Lapuyade
Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 3.2.2.) Finally,
up to $10,000.00 has been earmarked as a service award for Plaintiff. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 3.2.1.)
The
Parties’ Claims and Requests
As
to these apportioned categories, the parties are now seeking approval of the following
amounts to be deducted from the gross settlement:
Plaintiff’s
Attorney’s fees of $68,333.33.
Plaintiff’s
Counsel’s litigation costs of $30,000.00.
Administrative
costs of up to $5,500.00 for proposed administrator Apex Class Action.
A
service award of $10,000.00 for Plaintiff.
Pursuant
to the PAGA settlement, any reduction in attorneys’ fees or litigation costs
shall go to the Net Settlement Amount. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at §§ 3.2.1-3.2.2.) Similarly, any reduction in the
Administrator’s fee will go to the PAGA fund. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1
at § 3.2.3.)
Assuming
deductions from the Gross Settlement by the amounts Plaintiff seeks, approximately
$91,166.67 of the PAGA settlement would remain of which:
75% or approximately $68,375.00 is to go to
the LWDA (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 3.2.4.)
25% or approximately $22,791.67 is to go
to the Aggrieved Employees (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 3.2.4.)
The
Settlement Administrator will prepare and issue IRS Form 1099 for the PAGA
Settlement Members. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3,
Exh. 1 at § 3.2.4.2.)
Discussion
The
PAGA settlement agreement here clearly sets forth the scope of the
settlement. The term “Aggrieved Employee”
means “all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants
and performed work in California during the PAGA Period.” (Lapuyade Decl.
¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 1.4.) The “PAGA Period”
is from March 4, 2021, to July 7, 2024. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 1.23.)
The
PAGA settlement amount is reasonable. There are approximately 341 Aggrieved
Employees with a total of approximately 7,000 pay periods covered by the
settlement agreement. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at § 4.1.) With the
proposed deductions, assuming equal violations for each Aggrieved Employee per
PAGA Settlement pay period, the settlement would come to approximately $66.84
per employee or approximately $3.25 per pay period.
Plaintiff’s
Counsel claim that the maximum exposure, not stacking PAGA penalties, and
applying a violation rate of $50.00 per pay period would be $1,248,600.00. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 20.) The Gross Settlement amount represents approximately
16% of this maximum exposure. Defendant did not concede the allegations of the
complaint and had several defenses including that they had legally compliant
employment policies and practices throughout the statutory period. (Lapuyade
Decl. ¶¶ 28-30.) Further, reductions are generally applied if there are
any mitigating circumstances. (Carrington v. Starbucks Corp.
(2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504, 528-529 (affirming trial court’s award of less than
10% of maximum PAGA penalty for meal break violations where company sought to
comply with the law).)
Accordingly,
this gross settlement of $205,000.00 seems well within the reasonable range for
a PAGA settlement based on the defenses and allegations of the operative
complaint and those of the complaint in the Related PAGA Action. Moreover, the PAGA settlement negotiations
were at arm’s length and came about during the parties’ mediation with Brandon
McKelvey on December 14, 2023. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 14.)
Plaintiffs’
Counsel request $68,333.33 in attorney fees. The amount is 1/3 of the gross
settlement. Awards from the common funds – like this PAGA Settlement – of
33% for attorneys’ fees in representative actions are considered standard and
appropriate. (Laffitte v. Robert Half
Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 506 [affirming award of 33% of
the common fund]; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66
Fn.11 [“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.”].)
As
to the lodestar amount, the action took place over three years and involved some
degree of motion practice. Three separate firms worked on the action on
behalf of Plaintiffs – JCL Law Firm, APC, Zakay Law Group, APLC, and Lawyers
for Justice P.C.
Plaintiff’s
Counsel JCL Law Firm, APC is a boutique law firm focusing on wage and hour
class actions consisting of three attorneys – Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
(Partner/Owner), Sydney Castillo-Johnson, Esq. (Associate Attorney), Perssia P.
Razma (Associate Attorney) – and two paralegals – Tesla Stone (Senior Paralegal
and Office Manager), and Jennifer Heming (Paralegal). (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 38.) Counsel for JCL Law Firm, APC bill at rates
between $550 and $700 per hour which have been approved by multiple courts. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 43, Exh. 4.) JCL Law Firm,
APC spent a total of 132.6 hours working on the instant action for a total
lodstar of $74,082.50. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶
44, Exh. 4.)
Plaintiff’s
Counsel Zakay Law Group, APLC focuses on employment law, including PAGA
litigation. (Zakay Decl. ¶ 2, Exh.
1.) Between July 2022 and December 2024,
three attorneys of Zakay Law Group, APLC– Shani Zakay, Jackland Hom, and Jaclyn
Joyce – worked on the instant action for a total of 36.3 hours with hourly fees
ranging between $400 and $650 for a total lodestar amount of $21,360.00. (Zakay Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 3.)
Plaintiff’s
Counsel Lawyers for Justice, PC almost exclusively focuses on the prosecution
of consumer and employment class actions, including wage-and-hour claims. (Zabehi Decl. ¶ 2.) Two attorneys from Lawyers for Justice, PC worked
on the instant matter – Arby Aiwazian and Tara Zabehi. (Zabehi Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Zabehi of Lawyers for Justice, PC asserts
that Lawyers for Justice, PC billed at a blended hourly rate of $850 an hour
and spent a total of 93.5 hours on the instant action for a total lodstar of
$79,475.00. (Zabehi Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Exh.
3.)
In
total, Plaintiff’s Counsels claim to have spent 262.4 hours on the instant
action over two years for a total lodstar amount of $174,917.50. Thus, the requested attorneys’ fees of $68,333.33
equates to a negative lodestar multiplier of 0.039. Though the claimed lodestar amount is somewhat
high in light of the lack of motion practice, the requested attorneys’ fees of
$68,333.33 are still well below any reduced lodstar amount. Accordingly, the attorneys’ fees of $68,333.33
are reasonable, and the Court hereby approves this amount.
Plaintiff’s
Counsel seek combined costs and expenses of up to $30,000.00. These costs consist of filing fees, court
fees, expert fees, service of process, and mediation fees. (Lapuyade
Decl. ¶¶ 49-50.) Plaintiff’s Counsel JCL
Law Firm, APC incurred $7,887.35 in costs.
(Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 5.)
Plaintiff’s Counsel Zakay Law Group, APLC incurred $8,045.20 in
costs. (Zakay Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff’s
Counsel Lawyers for Justice, PC incurred $4,721.35 in costs. (Zabehi Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) In total, Plaintiff’s Counsel incurred $20,203.90
in costs. Based on the attached billing
records, these costs appear reasonable and are approved
The
release of claims in the PAGA settlement agreement for the Aggrieved Employees
is proper because it releases only PAGA claims that were raised in the original
notice letter to the LWDA and the complaint.
(Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 at §§ 1.27, 5.2.)
Plaintiff
seeks $10,000 as service award to compensate Plaintiff for the time that Plaintiff
has spent prosecuting this action on behalf of the PAGA aggrieved employees. Plaintiff Olisaemeka “assisted in reviewing
time and payroll records with [her] attorneys and informed them of Defendants
employment policies and whether those policies matched Defendants
practices.” (Olisaemeka Decl. ¶ 7.) “[Her] attorneys called [Plaintiff] to ask
[her] questions over several times throughout the litigation and [Plaintiff]
contacted [her] attorneys several times to stay updated on the case and offer
[her] assistance on any matters [Plaintiff] could be helpful with. [Plaintiff]
was also available for mediation by telephone. In addition, [Plaintiff] worked
with [her] attorneys over the next several months after mediation to understand
and execute a long form settlement agreement.”
(Olisaemeka Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff
has remained in contact with Plaintiff’s Counsel throughout the settlement
process. (Olisaemeka Decl. ¶ 9.)
In
light of the amount of the recovery Plaintiff has achieved on behalf of all
aggrieved employees and the time and effort Plaintiff spent on behalf of the aggrieved
employees, the Court grants the requested $10,000 service award for Plaintiff.
Finally,
Plaintiff has given notice of the settlement agreement to the LWDA. (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 32, Exh. 3.)
Conclusion and
Order
The
Parties’ Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED as the
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The
essential terms are:
The
gross settlement amount is $205,000.00
The
court hereby approves the following amounts to be deducted from the gross
settlement:
$68,333.33
attorneys’ fees to Aegis Law Firm, PC and Lawyers for Justice, PC;
$20,203.90
attorneys’ costs;
$10,000.00
service award to Plaintiff Chidinma Olisaemeka; and
$5,500.00
for administrator’s costs
The
Court will make the following changes in the proposed order and judgment lodged
on January 8, 2025 before signing it: the
request for $30,000 in attorneys’ costs will be stricken and replaced with the costs
proven of $20,203.90.
By
no later than March 26, 2025, Plaintiffs’
counsel must serve this Order and the signed Proposed Order and Judgment
on the LWDA pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(l)(3) and file proof of service
of such.
By
no later than February 26, 2026, Plaintiffs must file and serve a
final accounting.
A
Non-Appearance Case Review is set for March 5, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9
re (a) proof of service of this Order and the signed Proposed Order and
Judgment on the LWDA; and (b) final accounting.
PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO DOWNLOAD THE INSTANT SIGNED ORDER
FROM THE COURT’S WEBSITE AND TO GIVE NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
February 26, 2025 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court