Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2019-00054937-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00054937-CU-OE-CTL ANDREW VS CORONADO BREWING COMPANY INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: The Court rules on the motion for final approval of class and PAGA action settlement and application for attorneys' fees and costs as follows: These unopposed motions are granted for the reasons stated below.

The terms of the settlement are as follows: Defendant Coronado Brewing Co. (Defendant) will pay a gross settlement of $650,000.00 to the class, which includes attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, a representative enhancement and PAGA payments to the LWDA and the class.

(Hollis Dec., Exhs. A-B.) The estimated net settlement is $350,902.73. (Id., at ¶28.) There have been no objections or opt outs. (Dancy Dec., ¶¶14-15.) Legal Standard. When faced with a motion for final approval of a class action settlement, a court's inquiry is whether the settlement is 'fair, adequate and reasonable.' (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th   1794, 1801 fn. 7 (hereafter Dunk).) California strongly favors settlements. (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 100, 110.) The presumption of fairness exists where, as here '(1) the settlement is reached through 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.

(Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The factors that courts routinely consider in reviewing a proposed settlement are: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case, (2) the risk, complexity, length, and expense of continued litigation, (3) the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, (4) the amount offered in settlement, (5) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery already undertaken at the time of the settlement, (6) the experience and views of counsel, and (7) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

(7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1166-1167.) Here, Plaintiff Kenneth Andrew (Plaintiff) presented evidence establishing that the settlement is fair and adequate. (Hollis Dec. ¶¶25-32.) The parties engaged in arm's length negotiations and extensive investigation and discovery. (Id., at ¶¶25-26) Finally, counsel for Plaintiff is experienced and skilled in class actions. (Id., at ¶¶45, 53.) In addition, Defendant does not oppose the following proposed payments: (1) Class representative Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3001150  38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ANDREW VS CORONADO BREWING COMPANY INC [E-FILE]  37-2019-00054937-CU-OE-CTL payment of $7,500.00, (2) attorney fees and litigation costs of up to $216,666.67 and $21,930.60, respectively, (3) claims administration costs of $23,000.00, and (4) LWDA penalties of $30,000.00.

(Hollis Dec., ¶¶33, 41, 60, 68; Dancy Dec., ¶17, 21.) IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3001150  38