Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2016-00884797, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

The hearing on the Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to November 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. in department CX102 to permit the parties to respond to the following issues. A supplemental briefing shall be filed at least 9 days before the continued hearing and respond where necessary to each of the points raised below. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement is directed, rather than “amended settlement agreement”, to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. The parties shall also provide redline copies of the revised notice and proposed order.

A judgment in a PAGA action “binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4^th 969, 986.) Thus, “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, “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. (See Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 56.)

As to the Settlement

1.    A fully executed Amendment to the Settlement has not been provided, and it is therefore unclear if Defendants have agreed to the proposed Amendment. ROA 905, Supp. Lind Decl., ¶¶7, 10.

2.    Assuming the Amendment is agreed to by all parties, the Court notes following issues are still outstanding:

a.    Although the June 16, 2022 Minute Order expressly required Plaintiff to submit proofs of service of the moving papers and the Settlement on the LWDA (ROA 897, ¶¶1 and 2), no proofs of service have been provided. 

b.    Defendants and their counsel have not disclosed if they are aware of any other action pending with overlapping or related claims.

As to the Notice:

3.    If a Settlement Administrator will be retained, why does the Notice direct the aggrieved employees to contact defense counsel if they have questions?

As to the proposed Order:

4.    A revised proposed Order has not been submitted. Therefore, the following issues remain:

a.    The proposed order is to be revised consistent with the issues addressed above.

b.    Settlement and notice should be attached to the proposed order as an exhibit.

c.    The definition for aggrieved employees is not consistent with the definition in the Settlement. Settlement, ¶¶ 6-7.

d.    The proposed order should explain why there are two amounts for the gross settlement, attorney fees, net PAGA penalties, PAGA payments to the LWDA and PAGA payments to aggrieved employees.

e.    The release in the proposed order (7) is not consistent with the release in the Settlement (¶13).

As to the Disbursements: 

5.    Although Defendant is responsible for payment of up to $10,000 separate and apart from the total gross settlement amount, no information regarding who the parties intend to nominate or any bids from any settlement administrators demonstrating that the tasks can be performed for under $10,000 has been provided. Nor have the parties explained why the requested $10,000 amount for settlement administrator fees and costs is reasonable. This information must be provided since the Settlement provides that any amount over $10,000 will come out of the PAGA Claim Settlement Amount. ROA 881, Settlement, ¶23.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and file a proof of service at least 5 court days prior to the continued hearing. Any supplemental briefing in response to this ruling must be served on the LWDA and a proof of service filed at least 5 court days before the continued hearing.