Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV04375, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04375    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

            The parties have agreed to settle this action for $365,000. This amount is to be allocated as follows: (1) $121,654.50 for attorneys’ fees, (2) $16,202.44 for costs, (3) $6,750 for estimated administration costs, (4) $162,446.62 (75% of the net settlement amount) to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), and (6) $54,148.87 (25% of the net settlement amount) in civil penalties distributed to aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis. Named Plaintiff will also receive a general release payment to be paid separate and apart from the settlement amount and is not characterized as an incentive payment. (Moon Decl., ¶14.) Plaintiff now seeks approval of the parties’ settlement.

The PAGA is “a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.”  (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.)  The statute provides a mechanism for private enforcement of Labor Code violations for the public benefit.  (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; Ochoa-Hernandez v. Cjaders Foods, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1340777, at p. *4.)  To incentivize employees to bring PAGA actions, the statute provides aggrieved employees 25 percent of the recovered civil penalties.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i).)  The remaining 75 percent is distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency “for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under [the Labor Code].”  (Ibid.)

In reviewing the terms of a settlement agreement, the court determines whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned, and not the product of fraud, collusion or overreaching.  (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337; Nordstrom Commission Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.)  In the context of a class action settlement, the court considers various factors including whether: (1) the settlement is the result of arm’s length bargaining, (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation, and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.  (Nordstrom, at p. 581; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.)  In considering the amount of settlement, the court is mindful that compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.  (Wershba, at p. 250.)^[1]

After review and consideration of the moving papers and the remaining papers and pleadings currently on file in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to approve the settlement as fair, just and equitable. Further, the LWDA has been served with the settlement and moving papers and has not objected. (Moon Decl., ¶11, Exh. 2; POS 3/26/24.) Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

               Dated this 16th day of May 2024