Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01464, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01464    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Sachs v. American Gonzo Food Co., LLC 21SMCV01464

Hearing Date December 5, 2023

Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement (UNOPPOSED)

Plaintiff Sachs brought this PAGA action for wage and hour violations, including withholding tips, failing to pay minimum wage, regular wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to accurately record hours worked, failing to pay all wages owed at termination and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The parties executed a settlement agreement on October 6, 2023.

The prevailing employee in a PAGA action is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Lab. Code §2699(a). After fees and costs, the remainder of a PAGA award is to be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the State labor and workforce development agency, and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees. Lab. Code §2699(i). A PAGA settlement must be approved by the superior court before it is effective and submitted to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) at the same time it is submitted to the court. Lab. Code §2699(l)(2).

While the statute provides no standard for approval of a PAGA settlement, courts recently held approval under §2699(l)(2) is appropriate if the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75-76. This requires the court to consider any objections filed by the LWDA. Id. pgs. 78-79. 

The parties agreed to a settlement of $57,000, with plaintiff’s counsel to receive 40% of the gross payment for fees, totaling $22,800, in addition to $1,006 in costs. $8,950 will be paid to ILYM Group for services as settlement administrator. The remaining funds are to be split 75/25 as provided in the statute, with $18,182.70 going to the State and $6,060.90 going to the aggrieved employees, to be distributed on a pro rata basis based on the number of eligible pay periods worked by each employee. This distribution complies with the statutory requirements.

Sachs must provide evidence, such as proof of service, that the proposed settlement was submitted to the LWDA, as required by Lab. Code §2699(l)(2). The settlement cannot be approved until it has been submitted to the agency. CONTINUED for plaintiff to provide proof of submission to the LWDA.