Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 34, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 34-2017-00224116    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 40

34-2017-00224116; Case No. JCCP5160 APRO Wage and Hour Cases

Friday, June 6,  2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

I.        BACKGROUND

       These coordinated cases allege wage and hour claims against Defendant, APRO, LLC, in violation of the Labor Code. The coordinated cases are as follows:

JCCP 5160 Lilian Craven v. APRO, LLC

JCCP 5160 Dijana Garrett v. APRO, LLC.

21CMCV00277 Breanna Lopez v. APPRO, LLC

23STCV04096 Michael Pandolvi v. APRO LLC

22STCV17457 George Reyes v. APRO, LLC

JCCP 5160 Liridona Zymberi v. APRO, LLC

       A two-step process is involved in approving settlement. First, the court preliminarily approves the settlement, and the class members are notified as directed by the court. (Cal Rules of Court, 3.769 (c).) If preliminary approval is granted the court sets a final approval hearing with notice to be given to the class. (Id. at subd (e); Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118.)

       The parties have settled the class claims and now seek the court’s preliminary approval. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) The court determines whether the settlement is fair after considering the following factors: "the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. [Citation.] ... Due regard should be given to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties. The inquiry ‘must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.’” (Cellphone at 1118.)

       A presumption of fairness exists where "1) the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. [Citation.]" (Id.)

       The class is composed of 13,050 current and former employees of APRO. The parties agreed to the following settlement distribution with the help of a class action mediator.

       The court has considered the motion, and all the declarations submitted including that of the six named plaintiffs and finds that the settlement terms are fair and reasonable.

       The court grants conditional certification of the proposed Class. Plaintiffs’ counsel affirms the following:

1.      The parties engaged in mediation with an employment class action mediator Lou Marlin on August 12, 2024. (Banerjee decl., ¶ 26.) The matter did not resolve at litigation, but the parties agreed to a proposal two weeks later. (Id. at ¶28; see also James Treglio declaration, and Aanand Mehtani declaration.)

2.      The parties engaged in formal and informal discovery to investigate the claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 27.)

3.      Plaintiff’s counsel declares he has 12 years experience on complex employment law cases and has litigated numerous wage and hour class action matters as identified in his declaration. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

4.      The class representatives reviewed the terms of the settlement and agreed that the terms were fair and reasonable.

       The proposed settlement agreement complies with the procedural requirements of Cal. Rules of Court 3.769 and the case authority cited above. However, the parties have not submitted their proposed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Hearing. (See Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval, ¶ 8.)

       Subject to the submission of the proposed “Class Notice,” the court is inclined to GRANT the motion.