Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV08683, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 6, 2024

Case Name: Horta v. Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV34712 

Matter: Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jennifer Horta

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is a PAGA action.  The parties have settled this matter, and Plaintiff Jennifer Horta moves for approval of their PAGA settlement.  Plaintiff indicates that the settlement is as follows: “Defendants will pay a Total Settlement Amount of $297,045.00 . . . . The Net Settlement Amount will be the Total Settlement Amount less the following amounts: (1) Attorneys’ Fees and Costs consisting of attorneys’ fees of $103,965.75 and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of $3,206.87 to Plaintiff’s Counsel; (2) General Release Fee of $15,000.00 to Plaintiff; and (3) Settlement Administration Costs of up to $7,500.00 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators . . . . Seventy-five percent (75%) of the Net Settlement Amount (or approximately $125,529.28) will be distributed to the LWDA (i.e., LWDA Payment) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the Net Settlement Amount (or approximately $41,843.10) (i.e., Employees’ Portion) will be distributed to the Aggrieved Employees on a pro rata basis, based on their Compensable Pay Periods.”

Among other things, the reasonableness of the settlement amount is based on the facts that “Defendants . . . maintained several defenses to Plaintiff’s theory of liability, which, if successfully argued and proven, had the potential to eliminate or substantially reduce recovery. Throughout this litigation, Defendants maintained, and continues to maintain, that it had, and continues to have, legally-compliant employment policies and practices throughout the time period at issue. Defendants denies that it ever violated any provision of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, those sections for which Plaintiff seeks penalties under the PAGA. Defendants further denied, and continues to deny, that the lawsuit is appropriate for representative treatment for any purpose other than settlement. Defendants also challenged Plaintiff’s standing as an aggrieved employee and denied that any of Defendants’ other employees whom Plaintiff seeks to represent are aggrieved.”

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.