Judge Lon F. Hurwitz, Case 2020-01157719 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 2020-01157719, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

2. Status Conference

The court posted a tentative ruling prior to the 6/24 hearing and ordered the parties to address the following:

1. Please provide the court with copies of the pre-filing notices that were sent to the LWDA.

Resolved: Plaintiffs provided the LWDA letters. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Exs. C-G.)

2. The sub-classes alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) are narrower than those included in the Settlement Agreement. The Second Amended Complaint limits the sub-classes to those employed by Defendant in the state of California. The Settlement Agreement must be consistent with the SAC.

Resolved: The settlement agreement now limits the sub-classes to those employed by Defendant in the state of California. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. I, ¶¶ 35, 42.)

3. What are the expected high and low individual recoveries for class members?

Unresolved: The supplemental declaration, ROA 123, did not address this issue.

4. The court requires an explanation as to why it is appropriate to deduct the Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes from the Maximum Settlement Amount. How much is the Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes estimated to be?

Resolved: Payroll taxes are estimated to be between $1223.00 to $1,426.84, less than 1% of the maximum settlement amount. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.)

5. The court notes that it is unlikely to award enhancements of $10,000. The court will likely reduce the awards to $5,000.

Resolved: No response requested and none given.

6. Please explain the purpose of the language in subsection (c) of Paragraph 36 of the Settlement Agreement, which indicates that “Released Claims” includes any and all claims for improper or inaccurate itemized wage statements . . . including claims for injuries suffered therefrom.” What “claims for injuries suffered therefrom” is this settlement purporting to release and are those claims properly within the scope of a class action settlement release?

Resolved: The language regarding “injuries” comes directly from Labor Code section 226(e)(1), which states, “An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) . . .”. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. ¶ 8.)

7. What authority is there for the PAGA Period being released to commence on 4/6/19 when the first PAGA letter was sent on 8/25/20?

Resolved: The defendant is allowed to waive the statute of limitations for PAGA claims, particularly for settlement. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 542 [“[I]t was within AAM's discretion to waive its statute of limitations defense so Amaro could release class members' PAGA claims dating back to December 2010. And even if PAGA's statute of limitations were jurisdictional, that would not bar the court from approving a release of claims outside the limitations period.” (citation)].).

8. The definitions of “Released Claims” and “PAGA Released Claims” provided in the Notice are different from the definitions of those terms in the Settlement Agreement. The definitions should be consistent between the two documents.

Resolved: The language is now consistent. (Compare ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex I, ¶¶ 32, 36

with Ex. K, pp. 7-8.)

9. The language in the Notice indicating that “Late Objections will not be considered” must be preceded by the phrase “absent good cause found by the court…” See Guideline 10.

Resolved: The language includes, “absent good cause found by the court.” (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. K, p. 6.)

10. The court’s physical address (751 West Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701) should be included on page 6 where the information regarding the date, time and location of the Final Approval Hearing is provided.

Resolved: The Notice includes the correct address. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. K, p. 6.)

11. The court’s website address for viewing the docket must be updated, as the link currently in the notice no longer works. Instead, notice recipients should be directed more generally to: https://www.occourts.org/

Resolved: The Notice includes the correct website. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. K, p. 5.)

12. The address for the Final Approval hearing shown on page 2 of the Notice is incorrect. Department CX101 is located in the Civil Complex Center at 751 West Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701.

Resolved: The Notice includes the correct address. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. K, p. 2.)

13. Counsel must provide proof that the Settlement Agreement has been served on the LWDA.

Resolved: The language includes, “absent good cause found by the court.” (ROA 123, Yang Decl. Ex. J.)

14. Please address whether there are any other matters potentially influenced by this settlement.

Resolved: Counsel avers the parties are unaware of any other matters potentially influenced by settlement. (ROA 123, Yang Decl. ¶ 12.)

15. The Proposed Order must refer to the Settlement Agreement by reference to the ROA number of the declaration to which it is attached. A proposed date for the Final Approval Hearing must also be included.

Unresolved: Counsel’s declaration indicates he directed his staff to file an amended proposed order that refers to the ROA number and sets a Final Approval Hearing for March 31, 2023. No new proposed order has been filed.

No new proposed order has been filed.” (ROA 123, Yang Decl. ¶ 11.)

RULING:

The hearing on this motion and the Status Conference are continued to April 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX103 so that plaintiff may address the issues and questions identified below.

It is not necessary for plaintiff to resubmit briefing which has already been filed with the court. Supplemental declarations or other supplemental materials shall be filed at least nine (9) court days prior to the hearing. If a revised settlement, declaration(s), and/or proposed Class Notice are submitted, a redlined version showing all changes, deletions, and additions must also be submitted electronically to the Court.

1. What are the expected high and low individual recoveries for class members?

2. The Proposed Order must refer to the Settlement Agreement by reference to the ROA number of the declaration to which it is attached. As the continued hearing will take place after Plaintiff’s chosen date of March 31, 2023, a new proposed date for the Final Approval Hearing must also be included, preferably in the final quarter of 2023.

The hearing has been continued the first available date. There are no earlier dates available.

The court does not require any physical or remote appearance at the hearing scheduled for December 9, 2022.