Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV06163, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 9, 2023

Case Name: Walker v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV39172

Matter: Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Tashavea Walker

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 September 7, 2023, Plaintiff Tashavea Walker filed the operative First Amended Complaint for PAGA penalties.

The parties have settled this matter, and Plaintiff moves for approval of their PAGA settlement.  Plaintiff indicates that the settlement is as follows: “Plaintiffs, the LWDA and the Aggrieved Employees will share in a $975,000.00 non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount allocated as follows: 1. A PAGA Counsel Fees Payment of not more than one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount and a PAGA Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $325,000; 2. A service payment award to the Plaintiffs not to exceed $10,000.00 per Plaintiff; 3. Payment of all settlement administration fees and costs, including those of the Administrator estimated not to exceed $25,900; and 4. Payments to the Labor Workforce Development Agency in an estimated amount of $432,075 and individual payments to the Aggrieved Employees (estimated to be $144,025).”

Among other things, the reasonableness of the settlement amount is based on the facts that Plaintiff sought penalties for unpaid security checks, but eventually Defendants began to provide compensation for this time, limiting penalties; Defendants claim that their non-compliant rest period policy was superseded; there were few violations of meal periods and the presence of waivers; there were manageability concerns with Plaintiff’s PAGA claims; and there was uncertainty in the outcome of the case. 

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.