Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV11887, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11887    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action and PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

            On 3/29/2021, Plaintiff Luis Sanchez (Plaintiff) on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees filed suit against Brink’s Incorporated and Dunbar Armored, Inc., seek civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), and Labor Code section 2698, et seq.

Now, Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of the Class Action and PAGA settlement. 

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

The basic terms of the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Action Notice (Settlement Agreement) provide for the following:

(1) A non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $2,600,000.00 allocated to approximately 2,386 Class Members on a pro rata basis according to the number of weeks each Class Member worked during the Class Period;

(2) An award of up to one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount (currently $866,666.67) and up to $50,000.00 in reimbursement of costs to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for services rendered as counsel on this matter;

(3) Incentive Award of up to $10,000.00 to each Plaintiff ($40,000.00 in total);

(4) Settlement Administration fees and costs of up to $20,550.00; and

(5) Payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) of $100,000.00 for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA. Seventy-five percent (75%) of this payment will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA Payment), and twenty-five percent (25%) will be paid to the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to Class Members.

I.                   Provisional Certification of the Class

Class certification is appropriate when there exists (1) an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, (2) a well-defined community of interest among class members, and (3) when certification would be a fair and efficient means of adjudicating the action, rendering class litigation superior to alternative means. (See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1021.)

Here, the Class consists of all current and former non-exempt employees who are and/or were employed by Defendant in California as (1) drivers and/or messengers from November 1, 2019 to November 14, 2022 and (2) from April 1, 2017 to November 14, 2022 for all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California in roles/responsibilities and/or job titles other than drivers and/or messengers. (See Ishu Decl., Exh. 1 at § 1.5.) Defendant’s records show the Class consists of approximately 2,386 individuals, making joinder of all Class Members impracticable. (Ishu Decl., ¶ 8. See also Ishu Decl., Exh.1 at § 4.1.) Further, the Class is readily ascertainable from Defendant’s business records because all Class Members are current or former employees of Defendant. (Ibid.)

Second, Plaintiffs allege common questions of law and fact, i.e., that Defendant maintained uniform employment policies and/or practices that illegally deprived Class Members of lawful wages, meal periods, rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and waiting time pay. Plaintiff’s motion set forth persuasive evidence that Aegis Law Firm, PC, Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP, Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, and Bradley/Grombacher LLP have expended considerable time and effort on this case and will continue to do so through final approval. As such, the Court finds that a well-defined community of interests exists among class-members.

Third, none of the other 2,386 Class Members have shown any interest in bearing the expense and burden of litigating their own claims. (Ishu Decl. ¶ 20.) Thus, the Court agrees that a class action is the superior method for seeking relief.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the conditions for class certification are met.

II.                Standards for Preliminary Approval

Preliminary approval is warranted if the settlement falls within a “reasonable range.” (See North County Contractor’s Ass’n., Inc. v. Touchstone Ins. Servs. (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1089-90.)

Reasonableness and fairness are presumed where (1) the settlement is reached through “arms-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.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996). 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1802.)

To show that the Settlement Agreement satisfies these factors, Plaintiff submitted evidence that:

-         The Settlement was the product of extensive investigation and a full day mediation session with a respected mediator after formal and informal discovery. (Ishu Decl. at ¶ 7.) The negotiations were adversarial, conducted at arm’s length and tempered by the efforts of both sides to serve the interests of their clients. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The amount of Plaintiffs’ requested Incentive Awards were not negotiated until after the Parties agreed to the Gross Settlement Amount and many other terms. (Id. at ¶ 21.)

-         Plaintiffs’ Counsel thoroughly investigated the class claims, applicable law, and potential defenses. (See generally, Ishu Decl., Bello Decl., and Bradley Decl.) In particular, Plaintiffs’ Counsel assessed the value of the class claims using Defendant’s data and documents produced through formal and informal discovery. (Ishu Decl., ¶¶ 6 – 10, 12-20.) Plaintiffs’ counsel retained an expert to review class payroll and timekeeping records and compared them to wage statements to identify potential violations. (Ibid.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Counsel fully understood the strengths and weaknesses of the claims before the Parties reached a settlement. (Ibid.)

-         Plaintiffs Enrique and Marita Quiazon are represented by Aegis Law Firm, PC, Luis Sanchez is represented by Lavi and Ebrahimian LLP, and the Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, and Jose Cruz is represented by Bradley/Grombacher LLP. ). Class Counsel prosecute wage and hour class actions on behalf of employees and others who have had their rights violated. (Ishu Decl. ¶¶ 23-35.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ Counsel has extensive experience in similar litigation and should be appointed as Class Counsel.

-         While Plaintiffs and their counsel believed and continue to believe this is a strong case for certification, the significant risks and expenses associated with class certification and liability proceedings were taken into account. (Ishu Decl., ¶ 12.)

-         Plaintiffs contend that their claims are based on Defendant’s common, class-wide policies and procedures, and that liability could be determined on a class-wide basis without dependence on individual assessments of liability. (Ishu Decl., ¶ 11.) Although the amount of Defendant’s potential exposure – if proven – is substantial, the legitimate and serious risks of succeeding at class certification and trial compelled a serious consideration of the benefit of a settlement. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-20.) Plaintiffs provided an extensive exposure analysis. (See Motion, 12:7-14:16.)

-         Here, Plaintiffs had the option to pursue their claims individually, but instead chose to pursue this class action, delaying individual recovery until approval of a class action settlement. (Ishu Decl., ¶ 20.) Throughout the case, Plaintiffs assisted counsel in gathering the evidence necessary to prosecute the class claims, maintained regular contact with counsel, were available on the day of mediation and communicated with their attorneys during the day of mediation to answer critical questions, and reviewed the Settlement to make sure it was fair to the Class. (Id.) No action would likely have been taken by Class Members individually, and no compensation would have been recovered for them, but for Plaintiffs’ services on behalf of the Class. (Id.)

-         Plaintiffs’ Counsel seeks preliminary approval for $866,666.67 in attorneys’ fees, which is up to one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, and up to $50,000 in reimbursement of litigation costs. Given the work performed in this matter, the extensive information exchange, and substantial recovery obtained on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs’ Counsel achieved a settlement through efficient and diligent work. (See generally, Ishu Decl., Bradley Decl., and Bello Decl.) At final approval, Plaintiffs’ Counsel will fully brief the merits of its request for the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. (Id. at ¶ 37.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees that the Settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and meets the standards for preliminary approval.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.