Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2021-01184589, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary approval is CONTINUED to October 6, 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 the points raised below. Redlined versions of the revised proposed Class Notice and proposed order are to be provided. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement is directed, rather than “amended settlement agreement”, to avoid the use of limited Court time and resources.

1.    The PAGA release should be revised to state “…factual allegations in the Action alleged in the Complaint and PAGA Notice to the LWDA, …”. This revision should be made in the Class Notice and proposed Order. It does not need to be made to the Settlement.

2.    In paragraph 10, line 21 in the proposed Order, insert “As revised by the Court,” before “all PAGA Settlement Class Members …”

3.    The Class Notice and Request for Exclusion should be consistent in the terminology used to refer to aggrieved employees. The Class Notice refers to and defines “aggrieved employees” in one section and then refers to PAGA Settlement Class Members in another section, and the Request for Exclusion refers to “PAGA aggrieved employees”. See Ex. 102, Ex. 5, Redlined Class Notice, §§4, p. 5 and §5, p. 9, and Ex. 9, Redlined Request for Exclusion.

4.    The Class Notice does not explain how the PAGA payments are calculated for aggrieved employees, e.g. pro rata based on pay periods, and does not advise that the PAGA payment is characterized as 100% penalties and interest.

5.    The Settlement Share incorrectly explains the individual PAGA payment is based on the number of workweeks worked, rather than pay periods worked, during the PAGA Period. Compare ROA 102, Ex. 7, Redlined Settlement Share and Settlement, ¶5.4.

6.    The Class Notice should use consistent terminology regarding Requests for Exclusion. See e.g., ROA 102, Ex. 5, Redlined Class Notice, §6.2 [using “Opt Out” rather than “Request for Exclusion” or “Exclusion Request”.

7.    The Class Notice appears to require the objecting Class Member to file the objection with the Court. ROA 102, Ex. 5, Redlined Class Notice, §6.3. The objecting Class Member should not and is not required to file the objection with the Court. It is the responsibility of Class Counsel to submit all objections with the Final Approval motion.

8.    In the Class Notice at §6.2, p. 9, line 17, “completed” should be revised to “completing”.

9.    In the proposed Order, the extended deadline for re-mailed notice packets is not included in the implementation schedule.

10. In the proposed Order at paragraph 8, line 24, “approve” should be revised to “approves”.

11. Given the revised bid not to exceed $10,500 from the Settlement Administrator, why is it reasonable to preliminarily approve settlement administration fees of $30,000?

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA. Any supplemental brief and/or amendments made pursuant to this Order should also be filed with LWDA along with notice of the continued hearing date, with a proof of service submitted to the Court.