Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV14693, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14693    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 14, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Approval of PAGA Representative Action Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Alexander Flamer IV

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Alexander Flamer IV alleges that he and others were non-exempt employees of Defendant Advertise Purple. Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, and the Business and Professions Code.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to approve PAGA settlement. 

ANALYSIS

A.    Request for Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of LWDA Comments of LWDA Regarding Proposed PAGA Settlement and the Court’s December 4, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards is GRANTED.

B.    PAGA Settlement

Defendants have agreed to pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $82,500.00 to settle the action.

1.    The Settlement Falls Within the Range of Possible Approval

“The PAGA is limited to the recovery of civil penalties.” (Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579.) “Under the PAGA, the civil penalty for an initial violation is $100 per employee per pay period, and the penalty for each subsequent violation is $200 per employee per pay period.” (Villacres, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at 580.)

Plaintiff contends that approximately 50 aggrieved employees during the PAGA period worked a total of approximately 1,000 pay periods from May 2021 to July 2022. (Curtis Decl. ¶¶ 20, 48.) Using that data, and assuming a 100% violation rate where Plaintiff could obtain the initial civil penalties available under the PAGA, Plaintiff predicted Advertise Purple’s total exposure for civil penalties would be approximately $100,000 (1,000 pay periods x $100 civil penalty) without stacking; and $828,300 with stacking (i.e., the tabulating and aggregating of all potential penalties). (Custis Decl., ¶¶ 49, 71.) Plaintiff argues a gross settlement amount (“GSA”) of $82,500.00 or 19 percent of the predicted realistic total recovery of $438,650.00 with stacking, and 82.5 percent of the maximum recovery without staking, is reasonable.

2.    The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate

The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  It was reached through arm’s-length bargaining, based on sufficient discovery and investigation to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, and counsel is experienced in similar litigation.

The general release is fair and reasonable under the statute. The GSA is sufficient to remediate the LWDA and aggrieved employees.

3.    The Service Award is Fair and Reasonable

Plaintiff seeks the Court’s approval of a $1,000 Service Payment for his service to the State of California and the other Aggrieved Employees and the risks incurred in serving as Plaintiff in a PAGA action. This payment is appropriate.

C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Plaintiff requests $27,497.25 in attorneys’ fees, which is 33.33% of the GSA. Plaintiff also seeks an award of $7,886.88 for reasonably incurred costs, including filing fees, mediation fees, and postage.

The Court finds the requested attorneys’ fees and costs to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s Counsel shall receive $27,497.25 and $7,886.88 in costs.

D. Appointment of the Administrator and Approval of the Settlement Administration Costs

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint Ilym as the Administrator and approve Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of $3,995.00. (Custis Decl., ¶ 94.) The parties agreed to use Ilym to administer the settlement, and Ilym agreed to conduct the administration for the capped costs of $3,995.00.

            The Court finds this is reasonable.

E. Approval of the PAGA Payment Letter

Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the PAGA Payment Letter even though PAGA does not require notice to the Aggrieved Employees of the Settlement, which advises the Aggrieved Employees about this action and the Settlement. (Custis Decl., Ex. B, Ex.1.)

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s request.

F. Conclusion

The Settlement Agreement is approved, and the motion is GRANTED.