Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV36466, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV36466 Hearing Date: August 30, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 8
PROCEEDINGS
Natasha Amaral v. Unify Financial Credit Union, et al.
20STCV36466
Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
TENTATIVE RULING
Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 24, 2020. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on August 5, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Plaintiff filed the instant Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") action on behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendant within the State of California. Plaintiff’s operative FAC alleges the following violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code: (1) violations of Sections 2698, et seq. (PAGA); (2) Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (3) Sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 (failure to pay meal period premiums); (4) Sections 226.7, 516, and 1198 (failure to pay rest period premiums); (5) Sections 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198 (non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records); (6) Sections 201 and 202 (wages not timely paid upon termination); (7) California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (unlawful business practices); and (8) California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (unfair business practices).
The parties entered into a joint stipulation and settlement agreement for the sum of $400,000.00.
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769 states:
“(a) Court approval after hearing
A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing.
(b) Attorney's fees
Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney's fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney's fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action that has been certified as a class action.
(c) Preliminary approval of settlement
Any party to a settlement agreement may serve and file a written notice of motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion.
(d) Order certifying provisional settlement class
The court may make an order approving or denying certification of a provisional settlement class after the preliminary settlement hearing.
(e) Order for final approval hearing
If the court grants preliminary approval, its order must include the time, date, and place of the final approval hearing; the notice to be given to the class; and any other matters deemed necessary for the proper conduct of a settlement hearing.
(f) Notice to class of final approval hearing
If the court has certified the action as a class action, notice of the final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the court. The notice must contain an explanation of the proposed settlement and procedures for class members to follow in filing written objections to it and in arranging to appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections to the proposed settlement.
(g) Conduct of final approval hearing
Before final approval, the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement.
(h) Judgment and retention of jurisdiction to enforce
If the court approves the settlement agreement after the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter judgment. The judgment must include a provision for the retention of the court's jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The court may not enter an order dismissing the action at the same time as, or after, entry of judgment.”
“[I]t is the court that bears the responsibility to ensure that the recovery represents a reasonable compromise, given the magnitude and apparent merit of the claims being released, discounted by the risks and expenses of attempting to establish and collect on those claims by pursuing the litigation. The court has a fiduciary responsibility as guardians of the rights of the absentee class members when deciding whether to approve a settlement agreement. The courts are supposed to be the guardians of the class.” Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “We do not suggest that the court should attempt to decide the merits of the case or to substitute its evaluation of the most appropriate settlement for that of the attorneys. However, as the court does when it approves a settlement as in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the court must at least satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the “ballpark” of reasonableness.” Id. at 133.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions “when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court....” The party seeking certification has the burden to establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among class members. The “community of interest” requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. [¶] The certification question is “essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an action is legally or factually meritorious.” A trial court ruling on a certification motion determines “whether ... the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants.” Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326 (internal citations omitted).
Here, for purposes of settlement, Plaintiff has sufficiently established the requirements for class certification by showing the existence of an ascertainable class with 325 members and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. (Decl., Raul Perez, ¶¶ 5-25; Settlement Agreement, ¶ 7b.)
The Court finds that moving party has adequately demonstrated that the settlement is fair and reasonable considering the facts of this action and considering the interests of all the parties including members of the class. (Decl., Raul Perez, ¶¶ 5-25.) Plaintiff provided a calculation of all the potential penalties and the potential exposure and reasonable value if the case were to proceed to trial. (Id.)
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date is granted.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.