Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV26888, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26888    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV26888 Fernando Alencaster v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Related to 23STCV18670 Charles Keopimpha v. Manpower US Inc., et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT

                                                                                         I.         BACKGROUND

      This action was filed as a representative enforcement action to recover penalties for Defendant’s Labor Code violations pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The procedural background of this case does not conform with Plaintiff’s recitation of the facts.

      The court’s file reveals this matter was commenced as a representative action complaint filed on August 18, 2022, and assigned to the Hon. Lawrence P. Riff in Department 7 of the Complex Division. On August 24, 2022, Judge Riff determined that the case was not pleaded as a class action and ordered the matter transferred to the Hon. David S. Cunningham III in Department 11 of the Complex Division. On September 2, 2022, Judge Cunningham determined that the matter was not complex and not a class action. Ultimately the case was  reassigned to Department 40.

      Plaintiff represents that on June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a class action in the Superior Court. Plaintiff does not provide the case number and name. Defendant Honeywell timely removed that action to the Federal Court. Plaintiff then filed this representative action on August 18, 2022.

      On December 12, 2023, the Hon. Anne Richardson related this matter to 23STCV18670 Charles Keopimpha v. Manpower US Inc., et al. although Plaintiff concedes that case is not a part of this settlement and involves a different defendant and set of aggrieved employees. (Mot. , 3:6-8.) The parties settled this representative action on October 8, 2024.

      On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff contends the unidentified class action complaint was remanded back to this court. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and order on January 2, 2025, the remanded “Class Action” and this action was consolidated for the purposes of settlement.  

      Plaintiff now requests that the court certify the class and at the same time, grant preliminary approval of the class action settlement, although this is a PAGA representative action.

      There is no record of a federal court matter being remanded to this department. Plaintiff has not identified the federal court matter. Cases cannot be consolidated unless they are first related and pending in the same department. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.300.) The only case related to this action is 23STCV186770, which Plaintiff concedes is not a part of the settlement at issue.

      The parties cannot consolidate cases by stipulation; a motion must be noticed and heard after the cases have been related into a single department. (CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.3. subd. (g).) While Plaintiff contends that an order consolidating this matter with the federal court class action was entered January 2, 2025, there is no record of such an order.

      Class actions are defined as provisionally complex  and “all class actions are presumed to be complex and at filing are assigned to the Complex Litigation Program of the court." (CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.3.) Thus, the class action federal court matter, upon remand, would have been assigned to the Complex Litigation Program, not this court.

      The court cannot certify a class where the complaint does not allege class claims.  The complaint expressly alleges “class certification of the PAGA claims is not required.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 28.)  Given the serious gaps in the procedural history of this matter, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.