Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV15323, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV15323 Hearing Date: July 11, 2023 Dept: 78
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
JASON MCCLURE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAL-QUAKE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Defendant.
Case No.: 21STCV15323
Hearing Date: July 11, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
PLAINTIFF JASON MCCLURE’S PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT.
Plaintiff Jason McClure’s application for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED.
Moving party to provide notice.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an employment action brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff Jason McClure (“Plaintiff”) began working for Defendant Cal-Quake Construction, Inc. (“Cal-Quake”) on or about November 2018. (Compl. ¶ 1.) In June 2019, Plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident and requested medical accommodations. (Ibid.) Cal-Quake ignored this request. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also complained about Cal-Quake’s illegal labor practices. (Ibid.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was fired for requesting medical accommodations and reporting labor abuses. (Ibid.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting thirteen causes of action:
1. Failure to Reasonably Accommodate;
2. Failure to Engage in a Good-Faith Interactive Process;
3. Disability Discrimination;
4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination;
5. Wrongful Termination;
6. Failure to Pay Wage and/or Overtime;
7. Failure to Provide Meal and/or Rest Breaks;
8. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;
9. Violation of Labor Code § 226;
10. Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200;
11. Waiting Time Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203;
12. Labor Code Retaliation; and,
13. Private Attorney General Action for Penalties.
On July 13, 2021, Cal-Quake filed an Answer.
On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement and the Proposed PAGA Settlement (the “Settlement”).
On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Declaration.
On July 6, 2023, Defendants filed a Supplemental Declaration.
DISCUSSION
I. APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff moves for approval of the proposed PAGA settlement.
Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) states:¿“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.”¿ “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.” (Lab. Code, §2699, subd. (l)(3).)¿
While PAGA requires courts review and approve settlements, it does not specify the standard or criteria for such review. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75 (Moniz).) Thus, courts have generally applied the same review standards used for class actions, which inquire “independently whether a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable.” (Id., at p. 77.) To determine if a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable, courts consider 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.” (Ibid.) Lastly, courts will also consider if the settlement is “adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Ibid.)
Here, the parties have agreed to settle the matter for a gross settlement amount of $10,000.00. (Settlement ¶ 6.) From this, the following would be deducted: attorney fees ($2,000 or 20% of gross settlement amount), and litigation costs ($459.34). (Id., ¶ 6(c-d).) This leaves a net settlement amount of $7,540.66 (Id. ¶ 6.) Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (i), 75% of this amount is payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and 25% is payable to the aggrieved employees.¿Thus, the sum of $5,655.49 is payable to the LWDA, and $1,885.17 will be divided among the employees. (Ibid.)
A. Civil Penalties
Plaintiff seeks civil penalties for 140 aggrieved employees who worked during the relevant time period. (Stipulation at p. 2.)
Plaintiff contends that this settlement amount is fair, as Plaintiff’s Counsel worked diligently to prosecute the case by exchanging discovery and engaging in extensive negotiations with Defendant. (Settlement, ¶ 2.) Additionally, the parties engaged in extensive arms-length negotiation with the Hon. James Dunn to arrive at a fair and reasonable settlement agreement. (Ibid.)
The Court finds that the civil penalties agreed upon are fair and reasonable. That Plaintiff and Defendant reached this settlement after engaging in extensive discovery, and with the help of neutral mediator Hon. James Dunn, indicates that the settlement was reached in good faith.
B. Attorney Fees and Costs
Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (g), an employee who prevails in a PAGA action is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. Here, Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the amount of $2,000.00 (20% of gross settlement amount) and litigation costs in the amount of $1885.17. (Settlement ¶ 6.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Counsel fails to provide a time log, or other evidence of the reasonableness of this amount. However, as Plaintiff seeks only 20% of the award in attorney’s fees, a smaller amount than that regularly approved by this Court, and as Plaintiff’s Counsel details the necessary steps toward the eventual settlement agreement (Settlement ¶ 2), the Court finds that the proposed attorney’s fees are fair and reasonable.
C. Settlement Administration
Defendant Cal-Quake will appoint a corporate officer to act as the requisite settlement administrator to issue checks for individual PAGA payments and send them to aggrieved employees via First Class U.S. Mail. (Goldberger Decl. ¶ 7.) For any aggrieved employee whose PAGA check is not cashed or canceled after the void date, the settlement administrator will transmit the funds represented by the checks to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Aggrieved Employee.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s application for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED.
DATED: July 11, 2023
________________________________
Hon. Jill Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
