Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2019-01091269, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and Entry of Judgment to November 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date. Counsel must submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement. Counsel also must provide a red-lined version of any revised papers, including the proposed letter to the aggrieved employees. Counsel also should provide the court with an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved, with references to any corrections to the settlement agreement and the proposed letter to the aggrieved employees, rather than with just a supplemental declaration or brief simply asserting that the issues have been resolved.
The moving papers include no proof of service on defendants’ counsel (and defendants’ counsel did not sign the settlement agreement such as to confirm notice of at least the settlement terms that way).
The moving papers do not include a copy of either of the PAGA letters that were alleged in ¶¶38 and 40 of the Second Amended Complaint to have been sent to the LWDA on June 14, 2019 and October 11, 2019. The court needs a copy of the letters to verify that the settlement terms are consistent with the notices provided to the LWDA.
Sections I.1 and II.19 of the settlement agreement incorrectly state that the Second Amended Complaint was filed on February 13, 2020. The Second Amended Complaint actually was filed on March 16, 2020.
Plaintiff has not provided the court with the estimated high and low payments to aggrieved employees under the proposed settlement. These estimates are needed to assist the court in properly determining the fairness of the proposed settlement.
The description of the settlement payments on p. 1 of the cover letter to the aggrieved employees should state the exact amounts of the payments approved for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, plaintiff’s attorneys’ costs and expenses, and the costs of settlement administration.
This court will not award plaintiff any enhancement without full disclosure of the amount and terms of his individual settlement.
The [Proposed] Judgment should be retitled as [Proposed] Order and Judgment.
The “PAGA Period” is defined in §I.7 of the settlement agreement as June 18, 2018 to November 9, 2021, but ¶16 of the proposed Order describes the time period as June 14, 2018 to November 16, 2021.
The moving papers state that the Net Settlement Amount is $167,872.45, but ¶7 of the proposed Order says that the PAGA Fund is $167,872.40.
The proposed Order includes improper injunctive language in ¶¶3 and 6. The court will not issue an injunction against the aggrieved employees. Res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments should provide defendants with sufficient protection against facing these same claims again. In ¶3, the phrase “who are hereby barred” must be changed to “who may be barred as a matter of law”. In ¶6(c), the references to the LWDA and to all other PAGA Aggrieved Individuals must be deleted.
In ¶23 of the proposed Order, the final accounting hearing should be referred to as the Final Report Hearing.
Counsel should propose a realistic Final Report Hearing date, taking into account the time deadlines associated with funding the settlement, mailing distributions, allowing the check-cashing deadline to pass, and paying out uncashed check funds pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The court usually sets these hearings nine months after settlement approval if the check cashing deadline is 180 days. The parties must report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the aggrieved employees. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling to defense counsel unless notice is waived.