Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21SMCV01379, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01379    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Tabarez (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Alta Hospitals System, LLC (“Defendant”) and the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) with a Notice of Violations and draft complaint.  (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 11.)  The 65-day “waiting period” pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a)(2)(A) lapsed without the LWDA notifying Plaintiff it intended to investigate or otherwise take action with respect to Plaintiff’s claims.  (Lapuyade Decl. ¶13.)  Thus, on August 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Private Attorney General’s Act (“PAGA”) action against Defendant. 

On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended PAGA notice with the LWDA, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, including facts and allegations for violations of various sections of the Labor Code and California Code of Regulations.  (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 19.)  On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Plaintiff now moves for approval of the PAGA settlement.  Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

“Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee may bring a civil action personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. Of the civil penalties recovered, 75 percent goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, leaving the remaining 25 percent for the ‘aggrieved employees.”  (Townley v. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 179, 181 [cleaned up].)  An individual employee is not entitled to recover the entire 25 percent amount of civil penalties allocated to aggrieved employees.  (Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 736, 742.)

            “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.”  (Labor 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.)

            The parties seek to settle the matter for $355,000.00.  From the settlement proceeds,  $140,808.85 will be distributed to counsel for attorneys’ fees ($118,333.33) and reimbursement for litigation costs ($22,475.52).  Further, of the settlement proceeds, $3,965.00 will be allocated toward administration expenses; and $10,000 will be distributed to Plaintiff, as the PAGA representative plaintiff. 

            The remaining $200,226.15 will be allocated as follows:  (i) 75% distributed to the LWDA and (ii) 25% distributed among the 176 aggrieved employees, as required under Labor Code section 2699 and ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175.  (Lapuyade Decl. ¶ 22 and Ex. 1.)

            In coming up with the $355,000 figure, Plaintiff’s consultant performed an in-depth analysis of the potential maximum recovery for each claim as follows:

Claim                         Penalty           # Violations   Violation Rate                       Total

Unpaid Wages            $50                  10,163             100% of Pay Periods              $508,150

Unpaid Overtime        $100                516                  5.1% of Pay Periods               $51,600

Meal Periods               $50                  6,105               60.1% of Pay Periods             $305,250

Rest Periods                $50                  10,103             99.4% of Pay Periods             $505,150

Wage Statements        $100                10,163             100% of Pay Periods              $1,016,300

Waiting Time             $100                68                    100% of Pay Periods              $6,800

Reimbursement          $100                10,163             100% of Pay Periods              $1,016,300

(Lapuyade Decl. at ¶ 24.)

            Thus, the maximum total exposure is $3,409,550.  (Lapuyade Decl. at ¶ 23.)  Thus, the requested $355k figure represents approximately 10.4% of the maximum potential exposure.  With respect to the risk of litigation, in order to prevail in obtaining civil penalties, Plaintiff would need to prove each Labor Code violation for each Aggrieved Employee.  The settlement was negotiated by counsel at arm’s length, through the assistance of a mediator.  (Lapuyade Decl. at ¶¶ 17, 36.)

            Counsel also provides billing records for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to date, totaling the requested $153,535.75.  (Lapuyade Decl. ¶¶ 42, 58; see also Zakay Decl. and Blouw Decl.)  Further, Counsel provides an itemization for the requested $3,965.00 in administration costs.  (Ex. B to Hartranft Decl.)

            Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed settlement amount is fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement in its entirety and the Court will enter the proposed Order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  December 18, 2024                                                ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court