Judge Lon F. Hurwitz, Case 19-01111289 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 19-01111289, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Motion for PAGA Approval

FACTS/OVERVIEW: This is a PAGA-only action based on the following violations:

1. Meal and Rest Period Violations;

2. Minimum Wage Violations;

3. Overtime Violations;

4. Wage Statement Violations;

5. Failure to Reimburse; and

6. Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation.

The operative Complaint was filed 11-12-19. No party has filed a motion for arbitration. There is no discovery order or stipulation for discovery.

This is the SECOND hearing on this motion.

ANALYSIS:

Per the Court’s 02-24-23 Minute Order (ROA 408) Plaintiff was ordered to address the following issues:

1. The Complaint alleged there were approximately 100 aggrieved employees. (¶ 12.) Counsel now states there are 10. (Decl. ¶ 3.) What is the reason for this discrepancy? Additionally, as of what date were there 10? How many are there as of the date of this order? Counsel should consider adding an end date certain for the PAGA Period.

RESOLVED. (ROA 419.) Counsel reports there are 10 as of 02-23-23 and the size was incorrectly estimated as shown by discovery. (Id.)

2. Counsel seeks $1,000 in costs, but it does not appear a settlement provision expressly provides for this disbursement, as it must. Additionally, counsel must provide documentation to support any amount requested as costs.

RESOLVED. An Amendment has been executed that provides for up to $1,000 for attorney costs. (ROA 419 Ex. A.) Actual costs, even subtracting for copies, exceed $1,000 and supporting documentation has been provided. (Id. Ex. B.)

2. An invoice supporting the $1,000 sought in administration costs of CAC Services Group, LLC must be provided.

RESOLVED. An estimate has been provided that reflects $1,318.71 for administration costs. (ROA 419 Ex. C.)

4. As to the Notice, upon approval, it must include the amount of the settlement and the deductions therefrom. For now, the Notice should be revised and include blanks for the final disbursement amounts.

RESOLVED. A redline was not provided as ordered, but a revised notice has been provided that includes placeholders for the amounts of approved disbursements. (ROA 419 Ex. D.)

5. The Proposed Order (ROA 387) must identify the operative settlement by ROA number, include the amount of the Gross Settlement, all the disbursements and amounts, and attach the Notice as an exhibit. The Settlement should not be attached.

RESOLVED. A redline was not provided as ordered, but a revised proposed order has been provided that identifies the settlement by ROA number and purports to attach the Notice as Exhibit 1. (ROA 411.)

OTHER ISSUES as to the Proposed Order:

The order should indicate that the action will be dismissed with prejudice at the final accounting hearing assuming full compliance with the order by that date.

A proposed date for the final accounting hearing must be included. This should be scheduled with sufficient time to ensure that all disbursement efforts, including any disbursements to the unclaimed property fund, have been fully completed. If those efforts have not been completed, counsel to request a continuance of the final accounting.

The order needs to instruct the Plaintiff to submit a copy of the order to the LWDA within ten calendar days after entry of the order.

The order incorrectly references a payment of “Attorneys’ Fees”. (¶ 5.)

The order incorrectly identifies Phoenix as the settlement administrator. (¶ 6.)

The following language should be deleted (¶ 7): “… and are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from the institution or prosecution of any and all PAGA Released Claims.” Res judicata is sufficient.

The footer incorrectly states “…preliminarily approving class action…”.

RULING:

This is the second hearing on this motion for PAGA settlement approval. This matter was previously continued so that Plaintiff could address several issues identified by the Court. (ROA 408.)

Plaintiff’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, subject to resolution as to the OTHER ISSUES regarding the Proposed Order.. Following review of the supplemental papers, the Court finds the parties’ settlement agreement to be “fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, The Court approves the following distributions: 

Litigation costs in the amount of $1,000, the full amount requested.

Administration costs to CAC Services Group, LLC in the amount of $1,000, the full amount requested. 

Taking the above distributions into account, $8,000 remains to be distributed as provided under PAGA. This amount shall be allocated as follows: (a) $6,000 (75%) to the LWDA; (b) $2,000 (25%) to aggrieved employees. 

The Court approves the revised Notice (ROA 419 Ex. D), assuming it will reflect the disbursements above and otherwise conforms in all respects to this ruling.

As to the revised Proposed Order and Judgment (ROA 411), it must be further revised as follows:

1. The order should indicate that the action will be dismissed with prejudice at the final accounting hearing assuming full compliance with the order by that date.

2. A date for a final accounting hearing must be included. This should be proposed with sufficient time to ensure that all disbursement efforts, including any disbursements to the unclaimed property fund, have been fully completed.

3. The order must instruct Plaintiff to submit a copy of the order to the LWDA within ten calendar days after entry of the order.

4. The order incorrectly references a payment of “Attorneys’ Fees”. (¶ 5.)

5. The order incorrectly identifies Phoenix as the settlement administrator. (¶ 6.)

6. The following language should be deleted (¶ 7): “… and are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from the institution or prosecution of any and all PAGA Released Claims.” Res judicata is sufficient.

7. The footer incorrectly identifies the order as “…preliminarily approving class action…”.

Counsel is ORDERED to submit both clean and redlined versions of a revised order and judgment for the Court’s signature. Failure to do so will result in a continuance and/or an OSC re Sanctions for failure to follow the Court’s Orders pursuant to CCP Section 177.5.

Plaintiff must file an administrator’s declaration no later than 14 calendar days in advance of the final accounting to confirm that the distribution of funds is fully complete, including any distribution to the State Controller per the settlement agreement. If distribution efforts are not complete, counsel is ORDERED to call the Department Clerk and reschedule.

Plaintiff to give notice, including to the LWDA, and file proof of service.

The Court does not require any physical or remote appearance at the hearing scheduled for 06-16-23.

Please inform the clerk by emailing her before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing at CX103@occourts.org if both parties intend to submit on the tentative.