Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV02472 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action arises from an employment relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) states a cause of action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees for various Labor Code violations. Plaintiff and Defendant LBS Financial Credit Union (“LBS”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have resolved Plaintiff’s claims and entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”). (See Declaration of Simon L. Yang (“Yang Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.) On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court approve the terms of the Settlement (the “Motion”).

PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549, citing Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) In the context of class action settlements, the trial court must determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all concerned. (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 332, 337.) There is a presumption that the settlement agreement is fair where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the trial court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Id.) This standard applies in the context of class actions and qui tam actions alike. (See Gov. Code § 12652, subd. (e)(2) (in qui tam action, a state or political subdivision may settle the action with the defendant despite objections of the qui tam plaintiff if the court determines, after a hearing providing the qui tam plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances).)

With respect to PAGA settlement agreements, penalties recovered by aggrieved employees must be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (i).) A prevailing employee is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the action. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (g)(1).) The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the LWDA at the same time that it is submitted to the court. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)

Plaintiff has provided evidence that the Settlement was submitted to the LDWA. (See Yang Decl. ¶ 14, Exhibit 3.) The Settlement provides that LBS agrees to pay a total amount of $160,000. (Yang Decl., Exhibit 1 at § 3.1.) The Settlement allocates a maximum of 33.33 percent of the Settlement to attorney’s fees, litigation costs up to $3,500, administration expenses of $6,000, and a general release payment of $10,000. (See id. at §§ 3.1.1-3.1.3.) The remainder of the Settlement amount constitutes the PAGA Penalty Fund, 75 percent of which is to be to be distributed to the LWDA and 25 percent of which is to be distributed to aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis. (Id. at § 3.1.4.) There are approximately 136 aggrieved employees. (Id. at § 3.1.) Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reimbursement for $1,288.44 in costs and $53,333.33 in attorney’s fees. (Yang Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff requests a general release payment of $10,000. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s claims were disputed throughout the litigation and the Settlement was entered into after a period of negotiations lasting for several months. (Yang Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) The Motion and supporting declarations set forth a basis for the attorney’s fees and release payment requested.

The Court finds that the Motion sufficiently demonstrates that the terms of the Settlement, including the requested attorney’s fees and costs and release payment, are fair and reasonable. For these reasons and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court