Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV17284, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17284    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for approval of the Representative Action Settlement is GRANTED.

            On 7/24/2023, Plaintiff Joanne Nishinaka, an individual and on behalf of similarly aggrieved employees, filed suit against Stevens & Company, LLC d/b/a the Chef Agency, Karen Myers, and Steven Kamali, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation ; (3) failure to prevent; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) violation of the pregnancy disability leave law; (7) wrongful termination; (8) misclassification; (9) failure to pay wages; (10) failure to pay minimum wages; (11) failure to indemnify; (13) failure to provide rest periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) waiting time penalties; (16) Private Attorney General Act (PAGA); (17) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records; and (18) unfair competition. 

On 11/22/2024, Plaintiff moved for approval of the Representative Action Settlement.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            The parties have agreed to a Gross Settlement Amount of 50,000. The Gross Settlement amount includes: (1) payment of Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,650.00; and (2) reimbursement of Plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation costs and expenses up to $1,706.03. Plaintiff will take no enhancement by way of this PAGA settlement. (Joanne Nishinaka Decl. ¶ 8, Gomez Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 4 section 2.5.)

After the foregoing amounts are deducted from the Gross Settlement Amount, the remaining shall be allocated to the LWDA and Aggrieved Employees. The remaining PAGA settlement fund is $30,143.97 to be distributed as follows: 75% ($22,607.97) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($7,536) allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Id. at 3.2.3). The Aggrieved Employees will be paid on a pro rata basis. (Id. at paragraph 14, Exhibit 4, subsection 3.2.3, 3.2.3.1.)

 To determine whether a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the court must independently and objectively analyze the evidence and circumstances before it in order to determine whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.) A non-exhaustive list of factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement includes the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. (Id. at 129.) 

            Here, the parties engaged in informal and formal discovery, participated in mediation, and the Settlement Amount reflects the competing risks associated with litigating these claims. Plaintiff’s motion thoroughly sets forth an analysis of the competing risks here, to show that considerable thought and investigation was put into the decision to settle the claims.

            The Court also finds the requested litigation reimbursement fees and costs, as well as the settlement administration costs, to be reasonable.  (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (Cal. 2016) 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 555, 573.)

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of representative action settlement is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.