Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02971, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02971    Hearing Date: September 9, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/9/24

Case #23CHCV02971

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT

Motion filed on 7/8/24.  Amended Notice of Motion filed on 8/7/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Steven Jenkins

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Niva Labs LLC; Briana B. Chhin; Sokoun Chhin and Joshua Snyder

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order approving the PAGA settlement. 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 10/3/23, Plaintiff Steven Jenkins (Plaintiff) filed this wage and hour representative action, under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, against Defendants Niva Labs LLC, Briana B. Chhin, Sokoun Chhin and Joshua Snyder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges: (1) Meal and Rest Period Violations; (2) Minimum Wage Violations; (3) Overtime Violations; (4) Wage Statement Violations; (5) Failure to Reimburse Employment Related Expenses; (6) Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation; and (7) Failure to Produce Personnel Records Pursuant to Labor Code. 

Niva Labs LLC is no longer a viable entity, is not a party to the settlement agreement and will separately be dismissed.  (Yaeckel Decl. ¶3, Ex.1 §I(16)).  The settlement agreement is between Plaintiff, in a representative capacity only, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and the individual Defendants.   

After the formal and informal exchange of discovery, and analysis of time and wage data, the parties have reached a proposed settlement that includes a payment of penalties to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).  (Yaeckel Decl. ¶4, Ex.1).

On 7/8/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order approving the PAGA settlement with an amended notice and service of same occurring on 8/7/24.  No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed. 

ANALYSIS

For purposes of this settlement, the Aggrieved Employees are defined as “all persons who are alleged to have been employed or have been employed by Defendants in California as hourly, non-exempt employees from July 26, 2022, through May 10, 2024.”  (Yaeckel Decl., Ex.1 at ¶I, 2).  This time period is the covered PAGA Period.  Id.  It is estimated that there are 8 PAGA Members, including Plaintiff.  (Yaeckel Decl. ¶3; Ex.1 at §7).

The release is limited to PAGA claims only that arose during the PAGA Period and were, or could have been, asserted in the Operative Complaint. (See Ex.1,§I.13).  The settlement agreement only covers PAGA claims.

Each PAGA Member will receive an average payment of approximately $70.31 which  represents an average only because the actual amounts paid will vary depending on the amount of pay periods worked during the PAGA period.  (See Yaeckel Decl., Ex.1 at III.5). The PAGA Member payments will be paid 100% as penalties pursuant to a IRS 1099 form. (Ex.1, §III.4.a).

The Total Value of the proposed Settlement is $10,000.00, which is broken down as follows: (1)  $3,000.00 Attorneys’ Fees (30% of total settlement value); (2) $1,250.00 Costs of Litigation; (3) $3,500.00 Plaintiff’s Enhancement and §1542 Release Payment; (4) Sub-Total of $2,250 as the Total PAGA Penalties; (5) 75% ($1,687.50) shall be assigned/paid to the LWDA as penalties; and (6) The remaining 25% ($562.50) will be disbursed among all employees based on pay periods worked during the PAGA period.  (See Ex.1, §I.10, Ex.2).  Defendants, through their counsel, will self-administer the settlement and bear all costs related to the administration.  (Ex.1, §IV).

After the check cashing deadline (which is not less than 180 days after the mailing) any unclaimed funds sent to the Aggrieved Employees will be sent to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Aggrieved Employee.  (Ex.1, §IV.4). 

Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and the settlement, the Court finds the settlement and allocations to be fair and equitable.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.