Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2020-01128352, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling
The hearing on the Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to September 14, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in department CX101 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.4th 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. The release should be revised as follows: “any and all claims … that have been pled or reasonably could have been pled…”
2. Are the parties aware of any related or overlapping actions that this Settlement may impact? If yes, please identify the case, the court in which it is pending, and provide a brief summary of the procedural posture of that case.
3. Plaintiff has not identified the specific strengths and weaknesses of each claim or provided the maximum potential exposure and realistic exposure that was calculated for settlement.
4. Paragraph 9(b) provides that the prevailing party in a dispute to enforce the Settlement is entitled to attorney fees. The Court will not impose this provision on any unnamed Aggrieved Employees.
5. Paragraph 6(a) of the Settlement acknowledges that some courts enter an order approving the settlement and judgment and thereafter closed the case, while others enter only an order approving the settlement with later instructions to file a request for dismissal of the action. How the parties decide to terminate this action should be included in the proposed Order.
As to the Notice
6. The Notice to the aggrieved employees is to be revised consistent with the issues addressed above.
7. Does the Notice need to be translated to any other languages?
8. The Notice should advise the Aggrieved Employees that they cannot object opt out of the Settlement, and that they are barred from pursuing the civil penalties for the Released Claims.
9. The Notice does not provide the net amount of the Settlement, and the portion due to the LWDA or the Aggrieved Employees.
As to the Proposed Order
10. The proposed order is to be revised consistent with the issues addressed above.
11. In paragraph 7, the gross settlement amount is incorrectly referred to as the net settlement amount. The total PAGA penalties and amounts allocated to the LWDA and the Aggrieved Employees should be included in the proposed order.
12. The proposed order should include a date for the final accounting. The final accounting should occur after the deadline to cash checks has expired. The Court holds final accounting hearings on Fridays at 9:00 AM. The proposed order shall also state that Plaintiff will submit to the Court a final report at least 5 court days prior to the final accounting, including the actual amounts paid to aggrieved employees and the other amounts distributed under the settlement, including uncashed checks.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and file a proof of service. Counsel must also serve the LWDA with any amendments to the Settlement and supplemental briefing made pursuant to this order, and provide proof of service.