Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00038279-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00038279-CU-OE-CTL GONZALEZ VS SARAH BELDERES DDS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/27/2024

The unopposed motion for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

A. PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval. Lab. Code § 2699(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. The court must 'scrutinize whether, in resolving the action, a PAGA plaintiff has adequately represented the state's interests, and hence the public interest.' Id. at 89.

Here, the total amount offered in settlement for the PAGA claim is $10,000. Although the moving papers offer little detail regarding the strength of the PAGA claim, plaintiff has sufficiently justified the low settlement amount given the small number of aggrieved employees (21). (See Lurtz Decl., ¶ 14.) Accordingly, the court finds that the PAGA settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of PAGA's policies and purposes. The court therefore approves the parties' proposed settlement.

B. Turning to attorney's fees and costs, plaintiff's counsel did not set forth his hourly rate or the hours worked in his supporting declaration. Thus, the court is unable to determine whether the requested fees are reasonable under a lodestar analysis. However, in the class action context, trial courts have discretion to evaluate fee awards with a 'percentage-of-recovery' approach. See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503-06. Upon doing so here, the proposed fee award of $2,500.00 represents twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross settlement amount ($10,000). This is not out of line with class action fee awards calculated using the percentage-of-the-benefit method. See Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn. 11. Accordingly, the court finds that $2,500 is a reasonable award under the circumstances and is hereby approved.

C. The court will sign the proposed order (ROA 86) submitted with the moving papers.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106583  12