Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV31362, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31362    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Robert Zettlemoyer

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

Motion for Approval of Settlement and Entry of Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Robert Zettlemoyer (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order approving the settlement of his claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, § 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”) set forth in the Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Stipulation (the “Settlement”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendants Via Transportation, Inc., and Nomad Transit, LLC, along with their subsidiaries and affiliated companies (“Defendants”), on the other hand.

Plaintiff filed this PAGA action on August 18, 2020, and filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants on October 30, 2020.  The First Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action for penalties pursuant to PAGA based on Defendants’ alleged violations of various Labor Code provisions.

The parties have reached a settlement of $82,500.  (Treglio Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement, p. 6, § 5.1; Treglio Decl., ¶¶ 8, 16.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves the court for an order approving the parties’ settlement of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim.

Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee may bring a civil action personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations.  (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380.)  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 “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 testing the reasonableness of the settlement.  “[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; see also City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. (2d Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 448, 455 [stating that a proposed settlement that amounts to a fraction of the potential recovery does not in itself render the proposed settlement grossly inadequate].) 

A copy of the Settlement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of James M. Treglio.

Under the terms of the Settlement, Defendants agree to pay a total gross settlement amount of $82,500, to be allocated as follows:

·       Up to $28,050.00: payable to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees;

·       Up to $2,500.00: payable to Plaintiff’s counsel for advanced litigation expenses;

·       Up to $5,000.00: payable to the claims administrator, Simpluris, Inc.;

·       $46,950.00: PAGA Payment, representing the net settlement amount following deduction of costs to be paid for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and claim administration costs, as set forth above, of which 75 percent, or $35,212.50, will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25 percent, or $11,737.50, will be paid to all aggrieved employees.

(Treglio Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement, ¶¶ 5.2, 5.3, 1.14, 5.7.)

Plaintiff’s counsel estimates that the PAGA settlement group members will receive approximately $148.96 per aggrieved employee.  (Treglio Decl., ¶ 17.)  All alleged aggrieved employees will be provided with a Notice of Settlement that will inform each aggrieved employee of a summary of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, including the settlement amounts and proposed payments.  (Treglio Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement, § 7.5.)

The parties reached agreement following the exchange of informal discovery and arms-length bargaining that occurred during a full-day mediation with a private mediator.  (Treglio Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.)  Based on the argument and evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s motion, and the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, James M. Treglio, the court finds that the PAGA settlement set forth in the parties’ Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Stipulation is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

On November 3, 2022, the court continued the hearing on this motion, because Plaintiff did not submit a fully executed Settlement.  The court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration attaching a fully executed copy of the parties’ Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Stipulation no later than November 28, 2022.

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the supplemental declaration of James M. Treglio, which includes an updated copy of the Settlement.  The Settlement contains the signatures of Plaintiff, for himself, and Erin Abrams, “For Nomad Transit, LLC.”  (Treglio Nov. 29, 2022 Decl., Ex. A, Settlement, p. 17.)  The court notes that, although the signature page contains a header stating that it is for “Defendants,” directly below the signature of Erin Abrams includes a statement that it is “For Nomad Transit, LLC.”  (Ibid.)  As set forth above, there are two settling defendants in this action: Via Transportation, Inc., and Nomad Transit, LLC.  (FAC, p. 1; Treglio Nov. 29, 2022 Decl., Ex. A, Settlement, p. 1:1-4.)  However, there does not appear to be a signature on behalf of defendant Via Transportation, Inc. 

Although the court has determined, for the reasons set forth above, that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, the court has not been presented with evidence establishing that defendant Via Transportation, Inc. has signed the Settlement. 

The court therefore exercises its discretion to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a fully executed copy of the Settlement that includes a signature for defendant Via Transportation, Inc.  

ORDER

            The court orders that plaintiff Robert Zettlemoyer’s motion for approval of settlement and entry of judgment is continued to January 5, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.  

The court orders plaintiff Robert Zettlemoyer to file a supplemental declaration attaching a fully executed copy of the parties’ Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Stipulation no later than December 23, 2022.

            The court orders plaintiff Robert Zettlemoyer to give notice of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 6, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court