Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV40562, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40562 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: 61
Plaintiff David Jackson’s
Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.
Plaintiff to give notice.
I.
MOTION TO
APPROVE SETTLEMENT
Under PAGA, “t[t]he 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.” (Lab.
Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)
“[A] trial court should
evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations,
deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz
v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.)
Federal courts have compared
and contrasted PAGA settlements to class action settlements:
In the class
action context, where PAGA claims often also appear, a district court must
independently determine that a proposed settlement agreement is “fundamentally
fair, adequate and reasonable” before granting approval. [Citations.] However,
as the parties rightly point out and as noted above, this is not a class action
lawsuit, and PAGA claims are intended to serve a decidedly different
purpose-namely to protect the public rather than for the benefit of private
parties. [Citation.] In one recent district court case, the LWDA provided some
guidance regarding court approval of PAGA settlements. [Citations.] In that
case, where both class action and PAGA claims were covered by a proposed
settlement, the LWDA stressed that “when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief
provided for under the PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the
underlying purpose of the statute to benefit the public and, in the context of
a class action, the court evaluate whether the settlement meets the standards
of being “fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate” with reference to the
public policies underlying the PAGA.”
(Salazar, supra, 2017 WL
1135801 at pp. 3–4.) A number of these factors, “including the strength of the
plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and
likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount,” have been
recognized as useful in the analysis of PAGA settlements. (Moniz, supra,
72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.)
Plaintiff David Jackson
(Plaintiff) presents the terms of a proposed PAGA settlement here as follows.
Defendant Costar Realty Information, Inc. (Defendant) shall pay a gross
settlement amount of $42,500.00. (Moon Decl. Exh. 1 at p. 5.) These proceeds
are to be allocated as follows:
·
$2,000.00 to PAGA civil penalties, of which
$1,500 is to go to California’s Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA);
·
$5,902.50 to Plaintiff personally for his unpaid
wages claims;
·
$13,772.50 to Plaintiff personally for penalties, liquidated damages, and interest
(including his $500 share of the PAGA penalties);
·
$21,325.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel for payment of
attorney fees and costs;
It is important to note that
the present settlement applies only to Plaintiff’s individual claims and PAGA
claims asserted on his own behalf. As to
other aggrieved employees, the settlement makes no provision except for
dismissal of the PAGA claims as to them without prejudice. Here follows some
relevant language from the settlement agreement:
The
Parties agree that CoStar’s payment of the Settlement Sum is contingent on
dismissal with prejudice of the Arbitration, the Court s approval of the
settlement of and dismissal with prejudice of the claims Jackson asserted
pursuant to the PAGA stemming from alleged Labor Code violations he personally
experienced (i.e., PAGA penalties based on alleged Labor Code violations by
CoStar as to Jackson) ( Jackson s Personal PAGA Claim ), and the Court’s
dismissal without prejudice of the other claims asserted in the Action. . . .
[Payments shall be made after several specific occurrences, including] the date
the Court approves the Parties settlement of Jackson s Personal PAGA Claim and
dismisses Jackson s Personal PAGA Claim with prejudice and dismisses the
remainder of the Action without prejudice.
(Moon Decl. Exh. 1 at p. 6.)
Following
execution of this Agreement, counsel for Jackson shall provide a copy of this
Agreement to the LWDA and shall seek approval of the Parties PAGA settlement
with the Court and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as to Jackson s
Personal PAGA Claim and without prejudice as to other alleged aggrieved
employees.
(Moon Decl. Exh. 1 at p. 7; see also id. at ¶
10 [“Dismissal of the Arbitration and the Action”].)
In light of the above, the overall settlement amount
furthers the purposes of PAGA. The settlement is reasonable in light of the
strength and complexity of Plaintiff’s case, and the risks to be posed by
litigation, as presented in Plaintiff’s motion and supporting declaration.
Plaintiff’s settlement disposes only of his own claims, without prejudice to
any other aggrieved employees.
The $19,125.00 in attorney fees and $2,200.00 in costs allocated
in the settlement together amount to a little more than 50% of the gross
settlement proceeds, with the amount sought in fees representing exactly 45% of
the gross. Plaintiff’s counsel supports the requested award of attorney fees
with a lodestar analysis, claiming that a reasonable lodestar for the the
actual fees incurred here would be $47,942.75, representing 73.35 hours of
attorney work at rates ranging from $395 to $725 per hour. (Moon Decl.
¶¶ 36–42.) Included in these fees are the costs of administering the
settlement. (Moon Decl. ¶ 39.) The calculation of attorney fees from a
percentage of a common fund created by a settlement agreement is a permissible
mode of fee calculation. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc.
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) Courts may evaluate the reasonableness of any
percentage-based attorney fee award through a “cross-check” with a lodestar
calculation, as Plaintiff presents here. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half
Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 505.) The amount of fees sought is
reasonable in light of the lodestar, and the costs requested are supported by
documentation. (Moon Decl. Exh. 2.)
The motion is therefore GRANTED.