Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV38355, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV38355, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38355 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 61

NOAH WINN vs SOUTHERN GLAZERS WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC

Tentative:

Plaintiff Noah Winn’s Motion for PAGA Settlement Approval is GRANTED.

Plaintiff 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.)

Plaintiff Noah Winn (Plaintiff) presents the terms of a proposed PAGA settlement as follows. Defendant Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant) is to pay a gross amount of $2,435,000.00. (Mattern Decl. Exh. C, § 3.1.) From this amount, $811,666.67— one third of the total — is to be apportioned to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. at § 3.2.1.) Plaintiff’s counsel is to be reimbursed for up to $25,000.00 in costs. (Ibid.) Up to $15,000 shall be paid to the settlement administrator. (Id. at § 3.2.2.) Plaintiff seeks only $20,091.00 in costs, and the administrator has agreed to accept no more than $10,000.00 in payment. (Motion at p. 17.)

This leaves a net settlement amount of $1,593,242.19, of which 75% ($1,194.931.64) going to the Labor Workforce Development Agency, and 25% ($398,310.55) to be distributed to aggrieved employees on a per-pay-period basis. The class of aggrieved employees numbers approximately 2,242, who worked approximately 159,059 pay periods. (Mattern Decl. ¶ 9.) This yields an average per-employee payment of $177.67.

Plaintiff’s motion also includes analysis of Defendant’s relative exposure on each alleged violation, culminating in a total potential exposure, assuming full penalties on each violation for each pay period, of $76,897,878.10. (Mattern Decl. ¶ 9.) This is balanced against the risks and delays incident to litigation, as well as judicial discretion to reduce penalty amounts. (Mattern Decl. ¶¶ 10–15.) Plaintiff’s counsel also presents a justification for the fees sought, based on the contingency nature of the representation and the foreclosure of other employment to the firm of Plaintiff’s counsel. (Mattern Decl. ¶ 28.) 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

The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the purposes of PAGA, and the motion is GRANTED.