Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 20STCV36466 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV36466, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36466 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, January 31, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 3

PROCEEDINGS

Natasha Amaral v. Unify Financial Credit Union, et al.

20STCV36466

1. Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

2. Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

TENTATIVE RULING

Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted.

Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 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 Approval of PAGA Settlement

Labor Code §2699 states, in relevant part:

“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of this code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, for a violation of this code, may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures specified in Section 2699.3. . . .

(g) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an aggrieved employee may recover the civil penalty described in subdivision (f) in a civil action pursuant to the procedures specified in Section 2699.3 filed on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. Any employee who prevails in any action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including any filing fee paid pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) or subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 2699.3. . . .

(i) Except as provided in subdivision (j), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws, including the administration of this part, and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.

(l) . . . . (2) The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court. (3) A copy of the superior court’s judgment in any civil action filed pursuant to this part and any other order in that action that either provides for or denies an award of civil penalties under this code shall be submitted to the agency within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order.”

Labor Code §2699.3 states:

“A civil action by an aggrieved employee pursuant to subdivision (a) or (f) of Section 2699 alleging a violation of any provision listed in Section 2699.5 shall commence only after the following requirements have been met:

(1)(A) The aggrieved employee or representative shall give written notice by online filing with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and by certified mail to the employer of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.

(B) A notice filed with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency pursuant to subparagraph (A) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). The fees required by this subparagraph are subject to waiver in accordance with the requirements of Sections 68632 and 68633 of the Government Code.

(C) The fees paid pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be paid into the Labor and Workforce Development Fund and used for the purposes specified in subdivision (j) of Section 2699.

(2)(A) The agency shall notify the employer and the aggrieved employee or representative by certified mail that it does not intend to investigate the alleged violation within 60 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice received pursuant to paragraph (1). Upon receipt of that notice or if no notice is provided within 65 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1), the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to Section 2699.

(B) If the agency intends to investigate the alleged violation, it shall notify the employer and the aggrieved employee or representative by certified mail of its decision within 33 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice received pursuant to paragraph (1). Within 120 calendar days of that decision, the agency may investigate the alleged violation and issue any appropriate citation. If the agency, during the course of its investigation, determines that additional time is necessary to complete the investigation, it may extend the time by not more than 60 additional calendar days and shall issue a notice of the extension. If the agency determines that no citation will be issued, it shall notify the employer and aggrieved employee of that decision within five business days thereof by certified mail. Upon receipt of that notice or if no citation is issued by the agency within the time limits prescribed by subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph or if the agency fails to provide timely or any notification, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to Section 2699.

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a plaintiff may as a matter of right amend an existing complaint to add a cause of action arising under this part at any time within 60 days of the time periods specified in this part.

(D) The time limits prescribed by this paragraph shall only apply if the notice required by paragraph (1) is filed with the agency on or after July 1, 2016. For notices submitted prior to July 1, 2016, the time limits in effect on the postmark date of the notice shall apply. . . .”

Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees request approval of a settlement pursuant to PAGA on behalf of all persons who are or were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees from July 17, 2019 through January 7, 2022.

Plaintiffs assert that the parties engaged in a full session of mediation on November 16, 2021, with Jeffrey Ross, serving as mediator. The parties agreed to settle the action, subject to the Court’s approval, for the gross amount of $512,000 ($112,000 has already been paid; $400,000 has yet to be paid) on behalf of approximately 324 Aggrieved Employees. Plaintiffs’ counsel requests $170,667, as attorneys’ fees, which is 1/3 of the settlement amount. Plaintiffs contend class counsel spent a total of 363.9 hours on this action. The attorneys’ fees, if calculated via hourly billing, would have exceeded $250,000. (Decl., Raul Perez, ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also seek reimbursement of litigation costs not to exceed $20,000. The Court finds that the requested fees and costs are reasonable based on the time spent and rate charged, and the nature and complexity of this case. Plaintiffs also request $10,000 in administrator costs. Plaintiffs also request approval of a $10,000 PAGA settlement (“PAGA Payment”), of which 75% ($7,500) will be paid to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA Allocation”) and the remaining 25% ($2,500) (“PAGA Allocation”) will be paid to Class Members via the Class & PAGA Fund. Plaintiffs also request approval of a service award of $10,000 to Natasha Amaral for her service on behalf of Class Members.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have complied with the pre-filing requirements and that the settlement amount is reasonable. The Court determines that amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable and also approves the requested attorneys’ fees and costs.

Therefore, Natasha Amaral’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs are granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling.