Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV38438, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV38438    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Gerardo Contreras   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Gerardo Contreras (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order approving the settlement of his claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, § 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”), set forth in the “Individual Labor Code Claims and PAGA Settlement Agreement” (the “Settlement”), entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendants Leon’s Transmission Service, Inc., and John Paul Armstrong (“Defendants”) on the other hand. 

The parties have reached a settlement of $225,000.  (Koleson Decl., Ex. 6, Settlement, ¶ 3.1.)

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action pursuant to” PAGA.  The court’s review of PAGA settlements “ensur[es] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.”¿ (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)¿ In an effort to aid the court in the determination of the fairness of the settlement, Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245 (disapproved on other grounds), discusses factors that the court should consider when determining the reasonableness of a settlement agreement.¿ “[A] presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.”¿ (Id. at p. 245.)¿ “[T]he test is not the maximum amount plaintiffs might have obtained at trial on the complaint, but rather whether the settlement is reasonable under all of the circumstances.”¿ (Id. at p. 250.)¿¿¿ 

The court has reviewed (1) the terms of the Settlement, including (i) the amounts of the gross settlement, the individual labor code claims payment to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s enhancement award, the PAGA payments, and the attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, (ii) the release of claims, and (iii) the settlement administration procedures; (2) the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Jenna Koleson, in which Koleson states that (i) the parties engaged in significant discovery, including propounding 32 sets of discovery, taking witness interviews, and conducting depositions, (ii) the parties engaged in two full-day mediations on April 16, 2020 and October 12, 2022, and (iii) the parties thereafter agreed to a global settlement on December 6, 2023; and (3) the declaration of Plaintiff, in which Plaintiff describes his involvement in this action.  (Koleson Decl., Ex. 6, Settlement, ¶¶ 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.16, 1.17, 1.24, 3.1-3.2.4, 5, 7; Koleson Decl., ¶¶ 18, 6, 8-9; Contreras Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)  Based on the argument and evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and the declarations of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, the court finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.  (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.th at pp. 244-245.)  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Gerardo Contreras’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement.

            The court will sign and file the “[Proposed] Order and Judgment Granting Approval of PAGA Settlement,” lodged by plaintiff Gerardo Contreras on March 7, 2024.

            The court orders plaintiff Gerardo Contreras to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 17, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court