Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: JCCP5192, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff Rosa Nolasco Monge’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement to January 6, 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 class notice.  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 class notice, rather than with just a supplemental declaration simply asserting that the issues have been resolved.

The motion does not provide the court with the estimated high and low payments to be paid to class members, information that would enable the court to better evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement.  If such estimates are not available at this time, they must be provided in the motion for final approval.

The allocation of only 25% of the settlement payments for wages in ¶¶37 and 57 of the settlement agreement appears to be low.  The estimated exposure analysis in the motion allocates about half of the class members’ potential recovery (which is 90% of the gross settlement amount) to wages.  Either an increase to 33 1/3% or an explanation of why the figure is not at least 33 1/3% is required.

The settlement agreement in ¶44 and the last sentence above the signature line of the Workweek Dispute Form provide that the Administrator will resolve any workweek disputes.  The documents should reflect instead that the Administrator and the parties will attempt to resolve any such dispute, but the court ultimately will decide any unresolved dispute.

In the definition of Released Claims in ¶25 of the settlement agreement and §7 of the class notice, change “Actions” to “Action”, since only one case is settling here.

There is a mistake in ¶37b of the settlement agreement.  The paragraph has a formula to determine each class member’s estimated “Individual Settlement Payment”, but then says that “The Net Settlement Amount will be calculated by …”  Change “Net Settlement Amount” to “Individual Settlement Payment”.

The case number referenced twice on page 1 of the class notice and at the top of the Request for Exclusion Form and the Workweek Dispute Form also should include a reference to JCCP 5192, since that case file is where all the more recent documents are located.

In §1 of the class notice, the description of the case does not include two of the claims asserted in this action, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses and failure to pay accrued vacation.

Delete the too-restrictive sentence in §12 of the class notice which says, “Any attorney who represents a Class Member objecting to this Settlement must file a notice of appearance with the Court on or prior to the Response Deadline and serve Class Counsel and Defense Counsel.”

The title of the Workweek Dispute Form should be changed to “Workweek Dispute and Contact Information Update Form” to fully express its purpose.

At least a week before the next hearing, counsel for plaintiff Jorge Salazar should file a status report or declaration letting the court know what plaintiff intends to do about his own case.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to all counsel unless such notice is waived.