Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: BC706919, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Hearing: February 27, 2025 (continued from February 13, 2025 and February 20, 2025)

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

A. The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $1,500,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

o $525,000 (or 35%) for attorney fees to Class Counsel, McLachlan Law, APC, the Law Office of Thomas W. Kielty, Brown White & Osborn, LLP, and Rolando Gutierrez (¶3.2.2);

o $12,500 enhancement payment to Plaintiff Miller and $7,500 each to Plaintiffs Leon and Christopher, for a total of $27,500 (¶3.2.1);

o Payment of $75,000 (75% of $100,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA and $25,000 to the Aggrieved Employees (25% of $100,000 PAGA penalty). (¶3.2.5)

C. Employer’s share of the payroll taxes on the taxable portion of the settlement payments shall be paid separately from the GSA by Defendant. (¶3.1)

No later than March 3, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a single document that constitutes both a proposed Order and Judgment, consistent with this ruling containing all requisite terms, including the class definition, release language, and a statement of the number and identity of class members who requested exclusion.

By April 21, 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 June 22, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of the settlement funds.

The Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for June 29, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

This is a wage and hour class action. Plaintiffs initiated this Action on May 21, 2018, alleging causes of action against Defendants LS & Partners @ CA, LLC; LS and Partners at LAX, LLC; Paradies Lagardere @ LAX (F&B), LLC; and Paradies Lagardere @ LAX, LLC, for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements, (4) Failure to Pay Earned Wages Upon Discharge, and (5) Unlawful and/or Unfair Business Practices (the “Class Action”).

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a separate action (Case No. BC707660) in which they alleged a single cause of action for violation of the Private Attorney General Act (the “PAGA Action”).

The Class Action and the PAGA Action were removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2018, and on August 15, 2018, respectively. Plaintiffs promptly filed their Motion to Remand the Class Action, and Defendants thereafter moved to compel arbitration in the Class Action. While these Motions were pending in the Class Action, pursuant to a stipulated order the PAGA Action was remanded on September 26, 2018. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Class Action was eventually denied, and the Class Action was subsequently remanded on February 13, 2019.

With leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on January 11, 2021, adding causes of action for Defendants failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses. Defendants immediately filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint arguing that the relation-back doctrine barred Plaintiffs’ unpaid wage and failure to reimburse claims. On April 20, 2021, the Court sustained the Defendants’ demurrer disposing of both the wage claims and the failure to reimburse claims in their entirety, without leave to amend. After a successful writ petition filed by the Plaintiffs, on August 23, 2021, this Court vacated its Order of April 20, 2021, and entered a new order overruling Defendants’ Demurrer.

After mediation initially proved unsuccessful, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on April 7, 2022, which was denied.

On April 11, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff Miller’s and Plaintiff Leon’s claims, which was denied.

On August 3, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, with leave to amend.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. Defendants filed another pleading challenging the Second Amended Complaint on October 3, 2022. In lieu of submitting an opposition, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 7, 2023.

The Parties engaged in a full-day mediation with professional neutral, David A. Rotman, Esq., on November 10, 2021, to resolve both the Class Action and the PAGA Action, but the Parties were unable to resolve the Class Action or the PAGA Action. After resuming litigation, they continued efforts to reach a global settlement and, with Mr. Rotman’s assistance, on June 7, 2023, the Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal to globally settle the Class Action and PAGA Action for $1,500,000. A fully executed copy of the Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on April 2, 2024 attached to the Declaration of Rolando J. Gutierrez (“Gutierrez Decl.”), as Exhibit 1.

On September 6, 2024, after the parties filed further briefing and a revised Settlement Agreement to address concerns raised by the Court, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted. All references below are to the Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Rolando J. Gutierrez.

Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered (see Declaration of Chantal Soto-Najera (“Soto-Najera Decl.”).

On February 13, 2025, the Court continued Final Approval for Counsel to provide supplemental briefing regarding the final workweek count and the requested expert costs, with which Counsel complied. (See Supplemental Declaration of Chantal Soto-Najera (“Soto-Najera Supp. Decl.”), Supplemental Declaration of Michael D. McLachlan (“McLachlan Supp. Decl.”), Supplemental Declaration of Thomas W. Kielty (“Kielty Supp. Decl.”).

Now before the Court is the Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class action settlement.

· “Class” means all current and former non-exempt employees of LS & Partners @ CA, LLC, and/or Paradies Lagardere @ LAX (F&B), LLC, who work or worked at or for any restaurant, bar, or food and beverage concept owned or operated by LS & Partners @ CA, LLC, and/or Paradies Lagardere @ LAX (F&B), LLC, at the Tom Bradley International Terminal (Terminal B) of the Los Angeles International Airport, including III Forks Prime Steakhouse, Lucky Fish by Roku Featuring Drink LA, Petrossian Caviar and Champagne Bar, Cantina Laredo, James Beach Fish Tacos, Scoreboard LA, and P.F. Chang’s, at any time during the time-period of May 21, 2014 to September 18, 2023. (¶1.5)

o “Class Period” means the period from May 21, 2014 to September 18, 2023. (¶1.12)

· “Aggrieved Employee” means any current or former non-exempt employee who worked for Defendants between and including March 19, 2017 and September 18, 2023. (¶1.4)

o “PAGA Period” means the period from March 19, 2017 to September 18, 2023. (¶1.33)

· Class Workweeks and PAGA Pay Periods. Based on a review of their records to date, Defendants estimate there are 511 Class Members who collectively worked a total of 36,456 Workweeks during the Class Period, and 340 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 10,371 of PAGA Pay Periods. (¶4.1)

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

· The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $1,500,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

o Escalator: Based on its records, Defendants estimate that, as to the Class Period, (1) there are 511 Class Members (2) who worked a total of 36,456 Workweeks during the Class Period. If the number of Workweeks worked by Class Members during the Class Period is more than 10% greater than the above-identified Workweek figure (i.e., if there are 40,102 or more Workweeks worked by Class Members during the Class Period), Defendants agree to increase the GSA on a proportional basis beyond that 10% increase (i.e., if there is a 12% increase in the number of Workweeks worked by Class Members compared to what is set forth herein as to total Workweeks worked by the Class Members, Defendants would increase the GSA by 2%). (¶9)

o At Final Approval, the administrator confirms that there are a total of 499 Participating Class Members with a total of 34,864 Workweeks worked May 21, 2014, through September 18, 2023. Thus, the Escalator matter was not triggered. (Soto-Najera Supp. Decl., ¶3.)

· The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($698,500) is the GSA minus the following:

o Up to $55,000 ($25,000 to Plaintiff Miller and $15,000 each to Plaintiffs Leon and Christopher) for Service Payments to the Named Plaintiffs (¶3.2.1);

· Funding of Settlement: Defendants shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendants’ share of employer-side payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 14 days after the Effective Date. (¶4.3)

· Individual Settlement Payment Calculation: An Individual Class Payment calculated 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)

· PAGA Payments: The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA Penalties ($25,000) 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 Period count. (¶3.2.5.1)

· “Response Deadline” means 45 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. (¶1.45) 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. (¶8.6)

o If the number of valid Requests for Exclusion identified in the Exclusion List is 7.5% or greater than the total of all Class Members, Defendants may, but are not obligated to, elect to withdraw from the Settlement. (¶10)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks: The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 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). (¶4.4.3)

o Release by Participating Class Members: All Participating Class Members (which includes Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, release and discharge Released Parties (which is defined to include Defendants) from the claims alleged, or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts and/or allegations asserted, in the Action (as well as the letter(s) Plaintiffs issued to the LWDA), including any claims and/or allegations asserted in any prior iteration or version of the Action, for the Class Period and/or that accrued, arose, and/or originated during the Class Period, including state wage and hour claims, claims for/related to unpaid wages (including but not limited to those related to off-the-clock work and employee travel and/or commuting through and/or to the Los Angeles International Airport), fees, overtime wages, double time wages, minimum wage, on-duty meal periods, meal periods and/or meal period premiums, rest breaks and/or rest break premiums, timely payment of wages violations, accurate and complete itemized wage statements violations, failure to furnish and/or maintain employee files and/or payroll records, failure to timely pay all wages due and owed upon cessation of employment, violation of unfair competition and unlawful business practices law, failure to pay wages pursuant to the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, and failure to furnish a suitable place to take meal periods and/or rest breaks and/or suitable meal period/rest break facilities. This release includes claims alleging violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 201.3, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, et seq.; Labor Code §§ 510, 512, 558, et seq.; Labor Code §§ 1182, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, et seq.; Labor Code §§ 2802; sections 3, 9, 11, and 12 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order; 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11050(3)(A)(1), et. seq.; 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11050(9)(B), (11), and (12); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and L.A. Admin. Code §§ 10.37-10.77.14. (¶6.2)

o PAGA Release by Aggrieved Employees: All Aggrieved Employees, regardless of whether they are a Participating or Non-Participating Class Members, are deemed to release, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, the Released Parties from all PAGA claims and/or claims for relief and/or recovery under the PAGA (such as for civil penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs) that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged based on facts asserted, in the Operative Complaint and the PAGA Notice for and/or as to the PAGA Period. (¶6.3)

o “Released Parties” means: Defendants and any of their former and/or present parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, LS and Partners at LAX, LLC, Paradies Lagardere @ LAX, LLC, Concessions Management, Inc., Eastern Airport News, Inc., LS- Concessions Management at LAX TBIT, LLC, and Concessions Management- LS at LAX TBIT, LLC, as well as their officers, directors, managers, owners, executives, partners, employees, shareholders, agents, attorneys, and any other successors, assigns, or legal representatives. (¶1.43.)

o Named Plaintiff will also provide a general release and CC § 1542 waiver. (¶6.1)

The Court preliminarily found in its Order of September 6, 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.

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

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.

Class Counsel requests an award of $525,000 (35%) in fees and $100,529.43 in costs. (MFA at 15:6-7, 21:2-5.) The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $525,000 (35%) of the settlement amount in fees and $135,000 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. 15-20.)

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 35% of the gross settlement amount, which is the above 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:

(Decl. of Michael McLachlan ISO Final ¶62; Decl. of Thomas Kielty ISO Final ¶17; Decl. of Rolando Gutierrez ISO Final ¶¶7-8.)

Counsel’s percentage-based fee request is significantly lower than the unadjusted lodestar, and would represent application of a negative multiplier of approximately 0.36x.

Fee Split: $151,935 to McLachlan Law, APC; $170,310 to the Law Office of Thomas W. Kielty; $157,237.50 to Brown White & Osborn, LLP; $45,517.50 to Rolando Gutierrez. (McLachlan Decl., ¶63)

Here, the litigation was extensive, adversarial and protracted, spanning over the course of years before the parties ultimately reached a settlement that was favorable to the class largely due to Counsel’s strenuous efforts. The requested fees of $525,000 (or 35%) represent 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. (Soto-Najera Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.)

As for costs, Class Counsel is requesting a cost amount of $100,529.43[1]. This is less than the $135,000 cap estimated at preliminary approval, which was disclosed to Class Members and not objected to. (Soto-Najera Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.) Costs include, but are not limited to: Mediation ($22,250), Filing Fees ($4,101.55), Service ($3,761.94), Deposition transcripts ($6,953.45), Court Reporters ($10,504.55), Legal Research [Lexis/Westlaw] ($12,636.12), CaseAnywhere ($8,793.80), iBridge ($9,826.88), and Expert Fees[2] ($21,650). (McLachlan Decl. ISO Final ¶64 and Exhibits 3-5; Kielty Decl. ISO Final, ¶16 and Exhibit 7; Gutierrez Decl. ISO Final ¶9 and Exhibit 6; McLachlan Supp. Decl. ISO Final, ¶3; Kielty Supp. Decl. ISO Final, ¶5. [$39,657.35 to McLachlan Law, APC; $26,562.05 to the Law Office of Thomas W. Kielty; $2,785.70 to Rolando Gutierrez; and $31,524.33 to Brown White & Osborn, LLP.].) The costs appear to be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to this litigation.

Based on the above, the Court hereby awards $525,000 (or 35%) in fees and $100,529.43 in costs.

The class representatives, Plaintiffs Miller, Leon, and Christopher, seek an enhancement payment of $55,000 total, $25,000 to Plaintiff Miller and $15,000 each to Plaintiffs Leon and Christopher, for their contributions to the action. (MFA at 22:13-18.)

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 Miller represents that his contributions to this litigation include: engaging in communications with his attorneys, providing witnesses to his attorneys to interview, helping prepare his attorneys for the mediation and attending it himself, and sitting for three deposition sessions. He estimates spending over 19 hours for his deposition on the case, at least 50 hours during the first year of the case (2018) and at least 20 hours per year from 2019 forward. (Declaration of James Miller ISO Prelim, ¶¶3-10; Supplemental Declaration of James Miller ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff Leon represents that her contributions to this litigation include: engaging in communications with her attorneys, answering discovery, and sitting for two deposition sessions. She estimates spending over 10.5 hours on the case. (Declaration of Ashely Leon, ¶¶3-10.)

Plaintiff Christopher represents that her contributions to this litigation include: engaging in communications with her attorneys, answering discovery, and sitting for two deposition sessions. She estimates spending over 10.5 hours on the case. She estimates spending over 7.5 hours on the case. (Declaration of Damesha Christopher, ¶¶3-10.)

Based on the above, as well as the benefits obtained on behalf of the class, the Court hereby grants the enhancement payment in the reduced amount of $12,500 to Plaintiff Miller and $7,500 each to Plaintiffs Leon and Christopher, for a total of $27,500.

The settlement administrator, CPT Group, Inc., is requesting $12,500 for the costs of settlement administration. (Soto-Najera Decl. ¶16.) This equals the cost of $12,500 provided for in the Settlement Agreement (¶3.2.2) and disclosed to class members in the Notice, to which there were no objections. (Soto-Najera Decl. ¶9, Exhibit A thereto.) Based on the above, the Court hereby awards costs in the requested amount of $12,500.