Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV17726, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17726 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025 Dept: 61
ESTEBAN ROMAN et al vs SANTA ANITA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL & RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., et al.
Tentative:
Plaintiffs Esteban Roman, William Flores, Maria Nunez, and Micah Matthews’ Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.
Judicial Assistant to calendar a date for Status re Distribution of Proceeds. Plaintiff to file a responsive declaration re disbursements and distributions at least five days in advance of hearing.
Moving party to provide notice.
Analysis:
I. MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT
Under PAGA, “t[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) “[A] trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.)
Federal courts have compared and contrasted PAGA settlements to class action settlements:
In the class action context, where PAGA claims often also appear, a district court must independently determine that a proposed settlement agreement is “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable” before granting approval. [Citations.] However, as the parties rightly point out and as noted above, this is not a class action lawsuit, and PAGA claims are intended to serve a decidedly different purpose-namely to protect the public rather than for the benefit of private parties. [Citation.] In one recent district court case, the LWDA provided some guidance regarding court approval of PAGA settlements. [Citations.] In that case, where both class action and PAGA claims were covered by a proposed settlement, the LWDA stressed that “when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief provided for under the PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute to benefit the public and, in the context of a class action, the court evaluate whether the settlement meets the standards of being “fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate” with reference to the public policies underlying the PAGA.” (Salazar, supra, 2017 WL 1135801 at pp. 3–4.) A number of these factors, “including the strength of the plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount,” have been recognized as useful in the analysis of PAGA settlements. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.)
Plaintiffs Esteban Roman, William Flores, Maria Nunez, and Micah Matthews (Plaintiffs) seek approval of the following PAGA settlement. Defendants Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital & Retirement Center, Inc. and Golden State Health Center, Inc. (Defendants) are to pay a gross settlement amount of $500,000.00. (Bokhour Decl. Exh. A, § 1.10, 3.1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel is to take one third of this amount, totaling $166,666.67 for fees, plus reimbursement for actual costs of litigation, which here total $26,700.00. (Bokhour Decl. ¶ 24, Exh. A, § 3.2.2.) Plaintiffs are each to receive individual payments of $5,000.00. (Id. at § 3.2.1.) And the settlement administrator is to be paid up to $6,000.00. (Id. at § 3.2.3.)
These payments leave a net amount of $282,332.33 to be distributed as PAGA penalties, with 75% ($210,475.75) to be sent to the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), with 25% ($70,093.33) to be distributed to aggrieved employees on a per-pay-period basis. (Bokhour Decl. Exh. A, § 3.2.4.1.) The estimated size of the class of aggrieved employees is 1,083, yielding an average per-employee payment of $64.71.(Id. at § 4.1.)
Plaintiffs assess Defendants’ maximum potential liability to be $8,903.500.00, based on a $100 per pay-period penalty assessed for each of the 89,035 pay periods at issue here. (Bokhour Decl. ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs weigh this potential exposure against Defendants’ defenses and the court’s discretion to reduce penalty amounts when a violation is found. (Bokhour Decl. ¶ 22.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel also presents a proposed lodestar figure for the attorney fees sought, representing 211.8 hours of attorney work, which, when measured against the $166,666.67 in fees sought here yields an average hourly rate of $786.90. (Bokhour Decl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs’ counsel argue that their actual hourly rates —ranging from $258 for paralegal work to $1,141 for one attorney’s work, but largely consisting of 62.5 hours of attorney work at $675 per hour and 82 hours of work at $975 per hour — would yield a somewhat higher lodestar amount of $170,771.50. (Bokhour Decl. ¶ 33.)
The settlement comports with the purposes of PAGA and is fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs make a persuasive showing for the amount and allocation of the settlement award, and present evidence showing the reasonableness of the attorney fee request, calculated as a percentage of the settlement. The calculation of attorney fees from a percentage of a common fund created by a settlement agreement is a permissible mode of fee calculation. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) Courts may evaluate the reasonableness of any percentage-based attorney fee award through a “cross-check” with a lodestar calculation, as Plaintiffs present here. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 505.)
The motion is therefore GRANTED.