Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV39814, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39814    Hearing Date: June 5, 2024    Dept: 61

DANIEL ALVAREZ, ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs CULINART OF CALIFORNIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Daniel Alvarez’s Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff Daniel Alvarez (Plaintiff) presents the terms of a proposed PAGA settlement here as follows. Defendant Culinart of California Inc. and Culinart Group Inc. (Defendants) are to pay a gross settlement amount of $145,000. (Hawkins Decl. Exh. 1, ¶ 1.10.) Plaintiff’s counsel is to be paid fees not to exceed 35% of the proceeds of this gross amount — $50,750 — and up to $20,000 in costs. (Id. at ¶ 5.4.) Plaintiff seeks compensation for actual costs of $16,781.52.(Hawkins Decl. ¶ 7.) The settlement also includes administration fees of up to $10,000, now estimate to be $3,990.00. (Hawkins Decl. ¶ 7.) The settlement also provides for an individual enhancement fee to Plaintiff of $10,000.00. (Hawkins Decl. Exh. 1, ¶ 1.9.)

This leaves a net settlement amount of $63,478.48. From this amount, 75% ($47,608.86) is to be paid to the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) while 25% ($15,869.62) is to go to the aggrieved employees. The parties estimate that the class of aggrieved employees numbers 110 members, with 5,400 pay periods. (Hawkins Decl. ¶ 17.) The average payment to each employee from this amount is $144.26. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff estimates Defendants’ maximum exposure here would be about $1.1 million, if the court after trial were to ultimately award 100% penalties for each pay period at $200 per pay period. (Hawkins Decl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff notes that the court possesses the discretion to award a lower penalty amount even if violations are found. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (e)(2).) Plaintiff also notes the potential reduction of penalties given Defendants’ employment policies and potential manageability issues with the case, as well as the ordinary risks of litigation. (Hawkins Decl. ¶ 12.)

In light of the above, the overall settlement amount furthers the purposes of PAGA. The settlement is reasonable in light of the strength and complexity of Plaintiff’s claims, and the risks posed by litigation. Plaintiff’s request for fees, representing 35% of the gross settlement amount, is reasonable.. 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.)

The motion is therefore GRANTED.