Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV29987, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29987    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     June 4, 2025                                                   TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Jamie G. Ventura Rivera v. B & V Enterprises, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV29987

MOTION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ACT OF 2004

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jamie G. Ventura Rivera

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            This action for civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) was commenced against Defendant, B & V Enterprises, Inc., on November 14, 2024.  Plaintiff, Jamie G. Ventura Rivera, filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on January 17, 2025.

            The parties have agreed on the terms of a settlement.  Under the proposed settlement, Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $279,500.00.  Of that amount, $93,632.50 will be paid as attorney fees, $22,162.04 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation expenses, $5,000 will be paid to Plaintiff as a PAGA Representative, and up to $12,750.00 will be paid to a settlement administrator, leaving a Net Settlement Amount of $145,955.46.  (Leviant Decl., Ex. 1.)  From the PAGA Settlement Amount, $94,871.05 will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and $51,084.41 will be paid to the aggrieved employees.   

II.        DISCUSSION

A court must review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.  (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l).)  “[C]ivil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.”  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i).)  

A.        Plaintiff Has Provided Notice of the Settlement to LWDA. 

A proposed PAGA settlement must be submitted to LWDA at the same time that it is submitted to the court for review and approval.  (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)  Plaintiff’s counsel attaches proof that the settlement was submitted to the LWDA on April 7, 2025—before the motion was filed.  (Leviant Decl., Ex. 3.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that this requirement is satisfied. 

B.        The Settlement is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness. 

A presumption of fairness¿for a settlement agreement exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through 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.  (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.¿(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)  The final factor does not apply to PAGA.  (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 984 [representative actions under PAGA do not violate the due process rights of “nonparty aggrieved employees who are not given notice of, and an opportunity to be heard”].) 

On February 4, 2025, the parties attended an all-day mediation.  The parties were able to reach a settlement.  (Leviant Decl., ¶ 14.)  The settlement was therefore reached through arm’s-length bargaining. 

The parties engaged in discovery, including into Defendant’s policies and procedures. (Leviant Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 2.4.)  Accordingly, there was sufficient investigation to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently. 

Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced litigators in PAGA and wage and hour class actions.  (Leviant Decl., ¶¶ 26-32.)

The Court finds that the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness. 

C.        The Release is Permissible. 

If the Court approves the PAGA settlement, the PAGA Settlement Group Members will “release Defendant, and any predecessor, successor, subsidiary, parent, or affiliate as defined by Corporations Code § 150, and each of its supervisory/managerial employees, managing agents, shareholders, directors, and/or officers (“Released Parties”) from all claims for PAGA penalties that that could have been sought by the Labor Commissioner for the violations alleged in Plaintiff’s pre-filing PAGA Notice to the LWDA, including all claims for PAGA penalties that were alleged or which reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint and PAGA Notice that accrued during the PAGA Period including but not limited to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204(a)- (b), 204, 210, 221, 222, 223, 226, 226.3, 226(a)-(e), 226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1,1197.5, 1198, 2800, 2802, and the IWC Wage Order.”  On only their own behalf, Plaintiff also waives the protections of Civil Code section 1542.  This release is limited to claims for civil penalties that arise from or relate to allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC in this action, and it is permissible. 

D.        The Attorney Fees and Costs Are Reasonable. 

A prevailing employee is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the action.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g)(1).)  Plaintiff’s counsel will receive $93,632.50 in attorney fees (roughly 33.33% of the PAGA Settlement Amount) and $22,162.04 in costs and expenses.  (Leviant Decl., Ex. 1.) 

The Court finds that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. 

III.       CONCLUSION

The Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED. 

            Order to Show Cause Re: PAGA Settlement Administrative Report is set for 8/4/25 at 8:30 AM in Department 31 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   June 4, 2025