Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV09662, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09662    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV09662 Joshua Martinez v. Careonsite, Inc.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT

                                                                                         I.         BACKGROUND

      The first amended complaint alleges a representative action to recover civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for Defendant’s alleged Labor Code Violations. The parties have settled the action and now seek the court’s approval of the settlement.

                                                                                       II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

      The court must review and approve PAGA settlements to ensure that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected. (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) The court conducts its assessment based on information “about the amount in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes." (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76-77 ["We therefore hold that 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.”].) The trial court has broad discretion in approving the settlement. (Id. at 78.)

      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.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) The court may also consider other factors as this list is not exhaustive. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244–245.)

                                                                                                III.       DISCUSSION

      Plaintiff complied with the requirement to submit a copy of the settlement agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”).  (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2), (l)(4). (Decl. of George S. Azadian., Ex. 2.) The parties settled the action based on a mediator’s proposal after a full day of mediation and after the parties conducted discovery and investigation of the facts. (Id. at ¶ 9.)        

      The settlement provides for $240,000 to be distributed as follows (Id. at ¶ 7.)

      The net settlement amount to be distributed by the administrator is $137,454.39, 75 percent of which will go to the LWDA for penalties and the remaining 25 percent distributed among 225 aggrieved employees.

                                                                                         IV.       CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing and because no opposition has been filed by Defendant or the LWDA, the court approves the settlement.