Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV18391, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV18391, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18391 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Dept: 61

HENRY ALBARRAN vs SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC

Tentative:

Plaintiff Henry Abarran’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Analysis:

I. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Before granting final approval of class settlements, courts grant preliminary approval of the class settlement, grant conditional certification of the class, approve the forms and methods of class notice, and set a final hearing. (See Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 232.)

In determining whether a class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the trial court should consider relevant factors, such as “the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” [Citations.] The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. [Citation] Consistent with our standard of review on appeal, we do not reweigh these factors or substitute our notions of fairness for those of the trial court. [Citation.]

Although the court gives regard to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties, the court must also evaluate the proposed settlement agreement with the purpose of protecting the rights of the absent class members who will be bound by the settlement. [Citation.] The court must therefore scrutinize the proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary to “‘reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.’” [Citation.]

The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. However “a presumption of fairness exists where: (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.”

(Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244–45.)

1. Terms of the Settlement

The terms of the proposed settlement between Plaintiff Henry Albarran (Plaintiff), representing aggrieved employees, and Defendant) Senior Operations LLC (Defendant ) are as follows. Defendant is to pay a gross settlement amount of $1,250,000.00. (Chang Decl. Exh. 1, § 1.22.) From this amount $7,500.00 is to be paid directly to Plaintiff as class representative. (Id. at § 3.2.1.) Class counsel is to receive $437,500.00 in fees, representing 35% of the gross, plus costs not to exceed $30,000.00. (Id. at § 3.2.2.) The settlement administrator is to be paid from the gross an amount not to exceed $9,950.00. (Id. at § 3.2.3.) $100,000 of the gross is to be apportioned to AGA penalties, with 75% distributed tot eh Labor Workforce Development Agency, and the remaining 25% to be given to the aggrieved employees. (Id. at § 3.2.5.)

The remaining funds — the net settlement amount, under the above calculations amounting roughly to $665,050.00 — are to be distributed to the class members, based on the number of workweeks worked by the class member. (Chang Decl. Exh. 1, § 3.2.4.) The parties estimate the total class to number 606 employees, who collectively worked a total of 48,999 workweeks. (Id. at § 4.1.) The settlement contains provisions for increasing the gross settlement amount by a set formula if the number of workweeks exceeds the estimated amount. (Id. at § 8.1.) The agreement also includes a proposed notice to class members summarizing the terms described above and describing the procedures by which they might opt out of or object to the settlement. (Chang decl. Exh. 1 (Ex. A).)

2. Fair and Reasonable Settlement

Approval of a class action settlement “requires a record which allows “an understanding of the amount that is in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes of the litigation.” (Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 399, 409.)

This case was initially brought as a class action, with class allegations dismissed in favor of PAGA claims in a first amended complaint, and class allegations reincorporated in a second amended complaint by stipulation of the parties on August 14, 2024. Per the terms of that stipulation, the reincorporation of class claims occurred as a result of mediation, and the parties’ agreement to settle this matter as a class action. This settlement was reached as a result of arms-length mediation and the exchange of informal discovery, and Plaintiff’s counsel denies any collusion. (Chang Decl. ¶¶ 14–15.)

Plaintiff presents the following potential valuation of the claims, based on expert analysis and Defendant’s defenses:

3. $921,154 for off the clock work, weighed against Defendant’s denials that off-the clock work took place, contentions that the claim would be unmanageable to prosecute, and the contention that Defendant provided computers to employees that mitigated any off-the-clock time spent waiting to clock out of shifts (Motion at pp. 9–10);

4. $3,443,701 for meal period violations, weighed against Defendant’s denials, manageability concerns, and Defendant’s contention that their wage statements reveal consistent payment of meal period premiums (Motion at pp. 10–11);

5. $2,802.72 for rest period violations, weighed against Defendant’s denials and contentions that prosecuting this claim would require individualized inquiry unsuited to class litigation (Motion at p. 11);

6. $2,449,950 for inaccurate wage statements, weighed against Defendant’s contention that this claim is derivative of other doubtful wage claims, and the defense that no harm resulted from any inaccuracies (Motion at pp. 12–13); and

7. $673,686 for waiting time penalties, weighed against Defendant’s arguments against the off-the-clock theory (Motion at p. 13.)

(See Chang Decl. ¶¶ 17–30.) Plaintiff states that at the time of mediation, the failure-to-reimburse for work expenses theory was discounted to permit focusing upon the wage-related theories. (Chang Decl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff thus estimates the total maximum class claim exposure to be $12,497,468.00. (Motion at p. 17.)

Plaintiff also provides an analysis assessing total potential PAGA exposure — assuming a violation in every pay period for every employee absent the use of any judicial discretion to reduce the penalty amount — to total $22,069,050.00. (Chang Decl. ¶¶ 32a–32h.)

3. Fees and Costs

The settlement agreement provides for the compensation of Plaintiff’s counsel from 35% of the gross settlement amount, plus up to $30,000 in costs, subject to court approval. 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.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides testimony concerning their qualifications and experience litigating class and representative actions. (Bibiyan Decl. ¶¶ 2–22.)

4. Conditional Certification

“To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” (Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 639, 647, disapproved on other grounds in Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955.) “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives. The community of interest requirement involves three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Noel, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 968, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.)

Plaintiff here identifies an ascertainable class: “all persons currently or formerly employed by Defendant as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees during the Class Period.” (Motion at p. 18.) The class is numerous, in that it includes approximately 606 employees, for which joinder would be impractical. This litigation involves common issues as to each class member, namely whether Defendant provided requisite wages and breaks. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class he seeks to represent, and there exist no evident conflicts of interest between Plaintiff and the class. Plaintiff is also represented by experienced class counsel, as demonstrated by the declaration of David D. Bibiyan.

5. Conclusion

Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to indicate that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining, without collusion, following discovery sufficient to evaluate the strength of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses. Plaintiff has presented evidence of the reasonableness of counsel’s proposed fees, and made a persuasive case for conditional certification. Plaintiff has presented the notice to be given to the class members of the proposed settlement, which reflects its terms and the process by which they may opt out or object. The motion for preliminary class action settlement approval is therefore GRANTED.