Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 23STCV15949, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 23STCV15949, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15949 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: 9

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department 9

Case Number: 23STCV15949

Hearing: April 23, 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 $200,000 non-reversionary. (Settlement Agreement, ¶3.1)

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

o $66,666.67 (33%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o $14,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o $5,000 Service Payment to the Class Representative Angel Briones (¶3.2.1);

o $9,000 to the Claims Administrator for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o $7,500 (75% of $10,000 PAGA penalty) payment to the LWDA and $2,500 (25% of $10,000 PAGA penalty) payment to Aggrieved Employees. (¶3.2.5)

· Defendants shall pay their share of taxes sperate from the GSA. (¶3.1)

· Plaintiffs’ release of Defendants from claims described herein.

The Court will sign the proposed Order and Judgment that was lodged on March 13, 2025.

By June 23, 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 August 24, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of the settlement funds.

The Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for August 31, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour class action. On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff Angel filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for (1) Failure to Pay All Wages Including Minimum Wages and Overtime Wages (Labor Code § 510); (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512); (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512); (4) Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Separation (Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203); (5) Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records (Labor Code §§ 1174, 226 subsections (A), (E)); (6) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq.); and (7) Failure to Indemnify for Expenditures or Losses in Discharge of Duties (Labor Code § 2802).

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff commenced a PAGA action by filing a Complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for (1) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §2698 et seq. for Recovery of Unpaid Wages and Overtime; (2) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §2698 et seq for Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §2698 et seq for Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §2698 et seq for Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code § 2802 for Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Expenditures; and (6) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §2698 et seq for Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination of Employment.

On October 23, 2023, the Class Action and PAGA Action were consolidated, designating the Class Action as the lead case.

On January 11,2024, the Parties attended mediation with mediator Steve Pearl, Esq., and with his assistance, the Parties ultimately reached a resolution. A fully executed copy of which was filed with the Court on February 20, 2024, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of John A. Young (“Young Decl.”) ISO Preliminary Approval.

On June 11, 2024 the court issued a checklist of items for counsel to address. In response, on July 9, 2024, counsel filed a fully executed Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Supplemental Declaration of John A. Young (“Young Supp. Decl.”)

ISO Preliminary Approval as Exhibit B.

The Amended Preliminary Approval Order was entered on October 3, 2024. Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered. (See Declaration of Lluvia Islas (“Islas Decl.”).)

Now before the Court is the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement.

CLASS DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The essential terms are as follows:

· "Class" means all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California during the Class Period. (Settlement Agreement, ¶1.5)

o "Class Period" means the period from July 7 ,2019 to January 11,2024. (¶1.12)

o There are 429 Class Members who worked a collective total of 8,131 Workweeks during the Class Period. (Islas Decl., ¶13.)

· " Aggrieved Employee" means all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California during the PAGA Period. (¶1.4)

o "PAGA Period" means the period from July 8,2022 to January 11,2024. (¶1.31)

o There are 193 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 3,323 pay periods during the PAGA Period. (Islas Decl., ¶14.)

· Based on a review of its records to date, Defendants estimate that there are 429 Class Members and 8,131 Total Pay Periods during the Class Period and 193 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 3,323 PAGA Pay Periods. (¶4.1) If the number of pay periods is 10% or 813 pay periods higher than 8,131 pay periods worked, then Plaintiff shall, in his sole discretion, have the right to request a pro-rata increase in the gross settlement amount equal to the percentage increase in pay periods above eight thousand nine hundred forty-four (8,944) pay periods during the Class Period. (¶9)

o There were 8,131 workweeks, therefore the escalator clause was not triggered. (Islas Decl., ¶12.)

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

· The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($95,333.33) is the GSA minus the following:

o Up to $66,666.66 (33%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o Up to $14,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o Up to $5,000 for Service Payment to the Class Representatives (¶3.2.1);

o Up to $9,000 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o Payment of $7,500 (75% of $10,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.2.5)

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

· Funding of GSA: Defendant shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 30 days after the Effective Date. (¶4.3)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks: The face of each check shall prominently state the date (180 days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (¶4.4.1) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member thereby leaving no "unpaid residue" subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 384, subd. (b ). (¶4.4.2)

· Counsel submitted the proposed Settlement Agreement to the LWDA on February 20, 2024. (Young Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, ¶66; Ex. D.) Counsel submitted the proposed Amended Settlement Agreement to the LWDA on June 21, 2024. (Young Supp. Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, ¶9; Ex. D.)

A. Does a presumption of fairness exist?

The Court preliminarily found in its Order on October 3, 2024, 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: 429 (Islas Decl., ¶3.)

Number of notice packets mailed: 429 (Id. at ¶5.)

Number of undeliverable notices: 3 (Id. at ¶7.)

Number of opt-outs: 0 (Id. at ¶8.)

Number of objections: 0 (Id. at ¶9.)

Number of participating class members: 429 (Id. at ¶13.)

Average individual payment: $222.22 (Ibid.)

Highest estimated payment: $1,383.51 (Ibid.)

Lowest estimated payment: $11.72 (Ibid.)

Number of PAGA Employees: 193 (Id. at ¶14.)

Average individual payment: $12.95 (Ibid.)

Highest estimated PAGA payment: $32.35 (Ibid.)

Lowest estimated PAGA payment: $.75 (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 for in the Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs

Class Counsel request an award of $66,666.66 (33%) in fees and $14,000 in costs. (Young Decl. ISO Final, ¶31.) The Settlement Agreement provides for fees up to $66,666.66 (33%) and costs up to $14,000 (Settlement Agreement ¶3.2.3); class members were provided notice of the requested awards and none objected. (Islas Decl., ¶9, and Exhibit A thereto.)

“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.

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 33% 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.”].)

Counsel have provided the following lodestar information:

Biller	Rate	Hours	Total
MLG, P.C	$150 - $850	96.4	$60,480
Total		96.4	$60,480

(Young Decl. ISO Final Approval, ¶¶32-33 and Exhibit F thereto.)

Here, Counsel represent having spent 96.4 hours on this matter at rates from $150 to $850 for a total lodestar of $60,480, which requires a multiplier of 1.1 to yield the requested fee amount of $66,666.66. (Motion ISO Final, 15:17-16:12; Young Decl. ISO Final Approval, ¶¶32-33 and Exhibit F thereto.)

As for costs, Class Counsel is requesting $14,000 in costs. (Young Decl. ISO Final, ¶31 and Exhibits D-E thereto.) This is equal to the $14,000 cap provided for in the Settlement Agreement (¶3.2.2); for which Class Members were given notice and deemed unobjectionable. (Islas Decl., ¶9 and Exhibit A thereto.)

To date, Class Counsel have incurred a total of $15,248.10 costs. (Young Decl. ISO Final, ¶31 and Exhibits D-E thereto.) The costs include, but are not limited to, mediation ($8,750), filing/service fees ($2,989.98), J-Calc Review services ($1,650), and case anywhere costs. (Ibid.) The costs appear to be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to this litigation.

Based on the above, the Court hereby awards $66,666.66 (33%) in attorney’s fees and $14,000 in costs.

D. Incentive Awards to Class Representatives

The Settlement Agreement provides for a service award to the Named Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. (Settlement Agreement, ¶3.2.1)

Plaintiff Briones’s contributions to this litigation include, but are not limited to, spending at least 40 hours having numerous meeting and conversations with counsel, searching for and reviewing documents, preparing for mediation, and reviewing the settlement. (Briones Decl., ¶¶9-10.)

The Court hereby grants the enhancement payments in the amount of $5,000 per Plaintiff for a total of $5,000.

E. Claims Administration Costs

The claims administrator requests $9,000 for the costs of administering the settlement. (Islas Decl., ¶15.) This is less equal to the $9,000 maximum amount estimated at preliminary approval and disclosed in the notice to class members, to which there were no objections. (Id. at ¶9 and Exhibit A thereto.) Based on all the work performed by the Claims Administrator, the Court hereby awards costs in the requested amount.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER