Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV21860, Date: 2023-12-08 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. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 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 Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have resolved Plaintiff’s claims and entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”). (See Declaration of J. Kirk Donnelly (“Donnelly Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) On November 13, 2023, 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 Donnelly Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibits 4-5.) The Settlement provides that Defendant agrees to pay a gross settlement amount (“GSA”) of $172,500. The Settlement allocates a maximum of one third of the GSA to attorney’s fees, and allows for litigation costs of up to $11,000, and administration expenses of up to $6,500. (Donnelly Decl., Exhibit 1 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 § 3.2.3-3.2.3.1.) There are approximately 337 aggrieved employees. (Id. at § 4.1.) Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reimbursement for $57,500 in attorney’s fees and $10,164.11 in costs. (Donnelly Decl. ¶¶ 25, 40.)

Plaintiff’s claims were disputed throughout the litigation and the Settlement was entered into after the Parties participated in a day of mediation. (Donnelly Decl. ¶ 8.) The Settlement releases only civil penalty claims brought under PAGA and protects the rights of aggrieved employees to bring their own individual claims. (Donnelly Decl. ¶ 13.) The Motion and supporting declarations set forth a basis for the attorney’s fees and costs requested.

The Court finds that the Motion sufficiently demonstrates that the terms of the Settlement, including the requested attorney’s fees and costs, and administration costs, 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.)

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