Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00017229-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 12, 2024

06/14/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00017229-CU-OE-CTL HA VS 5TH AXIS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT 5TH AXIS, INC.'S CONTINUED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF INDIVIDUAL PAGA SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTION 2699 (l)(2) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.6 is GRANTED.

Defendant 5TH AXIS, INC. ('Defendant') seek to have the settlement with Plaintiff CHRIS HA ('Plaintiff') approved. The Court 'shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant' to the PAGA statute. (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) 'The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.' (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) Plaintiff's counsel objects to the settlement. The Court agrees CCP section 664.6 does not apply as Labor Code section 2699 is a more recent Legislature act that more specifically addresses approval of settlements as to PAGA actions. (See Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 627, 634.) The Court must apply Labor Code section 2699.

Despite the fact that ' 'a representative action under PAGA is not a class action' ' (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 87, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 769, 459 P.3d 1123), and is instead a 'type of qui tam action' (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 382, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129), a standard requiring the trial court to determine independently whether a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable is appropriate.

(Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76.) Factors that should be evaluated to determine the fairness of a PAGA settlement include 'the strength of the plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount.' (Id. at 77.) The Court continued this motion to allow Plaintiff's counsel the opportunity to conduct discovery to find a replacement representative because the settlement requires Plaintiff to withdraw from the PAGA action as the representative and to cooperate with Defendant's attorneys 'in the execution of whatever documents are necessary to confirm this settlement and dismissal of the PAGA claims, including a dismissal or withdrawal of Employee's participation in the PAGA Action.' (Decl. Koza, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff's counsel has not filed any further briefing to address whether counsel does not oppose the motion given the discovery of a new representative. The Court finds it has given Plaintiff's counsel an adequate opportunity to find a replacement representative that would be required for the representative PAGA portion to continue.

Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute that the settlement of the individual PAGA claim is fair and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093777 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HA VS 5TH AXIS INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00017229-CU-OE-CTL reasonable. Plaintiff's counsel's qualm with the settlement was as to the effect on the representative portion of the PAGA claims. Further, Defendant has represented that it submitted the proposed settlement to the California Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA) at the same time it submitted it to the Court, as is required. (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) The LWDA has not opposed the settlement. The Court finds the settlement should be approved under the factors identified in Moniz. The motion is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093777