Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV34463, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 28, 2022

Case Name: Lopez v. Vista Veranda Village Corp., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV20809

Matter: Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Alondra Lopez

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Alondra Lopez filed the operative Complaint alleging the following causes of action: Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq. (First Cause of Action); Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq. (Second Cause of Action); Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq. (Third Cause of Action); Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq. (Fourth Cause of Action); Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq. (Fifth Cause of Action); Declaratory Judgment (Sixth Cause of Action); Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Seventh Cause of Action); Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 1194 (Eighth Cause of Action); Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 (Ninth Cause of Action); Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 (Tenth Cause of Action); Failure to Provide Rest Periods Labor Code §§226.7 (Eleventh Cause Of Action); Failure to Provide Itemized Wage and Hour Statements Labor Code §§226 et seq. (Twelfth Cause Of Action); Waiting Time Penalties Labor Code §§ 201-203 (Thirteenth Cause of Action); Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Fourteenth Cause of Action); and Unfair Competition Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. (Fifteenth Cause of Action). 

The parties have settled this matter, and Plaintiff moves for approval of their PAGA settlement.  Plaintiff indicates that the settlement is as follows:

Attorneys Fees and Litigation Costs: $49,000

PAGA Administrator Fees and Costs: $4,000

Individual Plaintiff Payment: $10,000

PAGA Penalty Payment to LWDA and Aggrieved Employees: $77,000

Reasonableness of the settlement amount is based on Defendant’s contentions that (1) Plaintiff lacks standing; (2) Plaintiff’s evidence is individualized and anecdotal; (3) Plaintiff’s testimony in this matter seems to suggest that it is possible not all employees of Defendant were prevented from taking statutory rest breaks; and (4) a reduction in penalties might be warranted under Lab. Code § 2699(e).  Counsel have also recognized that extensive litigation would be required with high risks.  For example, Plaintiff would have needed to take the depositions of each of the potentially 105 employees who worked for the Settling Defendant herein during the relevant time period, as well as the depositions of the various managers and supervisors at the locations where the “aggrieved employees” worked.

The PAGA is “a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.”  (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.)  The statute provides a mechanism for private enforcement of Labor Code violations for the public benefit.  (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; Ochoa-Hernandez v. Cjaders Foods, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1340777, at p. *4.)  To incentivize employees to bring PAGA actions, the statute provides aggrieved employees 25 percent of the recovered civil penalties.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i).)  The remaining 75 percent is distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) “for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under [the Labor Code].”  (Ibid.)

In reviewing the terms of a settlement agreement, the court determines whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all concerned, and not the product of fraud, collusion, or overreaching.  (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337; Nordstrom Commission Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.)  In the context of a class action settlement, the court considers various factors including whether (1) the settlement is the result of 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.  (Nordstrom, at p. 581; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.)  In considering the amount of settlement, the court is mindful that compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.  (Wershba, at p. 250.)

After review and consideration of the papers, oral argument, such other and further evidence submitted for consideration, and the remaining papers and pleadings currently on file in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to approve the settlement as fair, just and equitable.  The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.