Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV10092, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10092    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

 

rudy orellana , individually and on behalf of other aggrieved current and former employees,

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

orange bang, inc. , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

21STCV10092

 

 

Hearing Date:

August 16, 2022

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

 

motion to approve settlement agreement pursuant to the labor code private attorneys general act

 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Rudy B. Orellana

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

 

Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act

            The court considered the moving papers.  No opposition to the motion was filed. 

 

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Rudy B. Orellana (“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 Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendants Orange Bang, Inc., David Fox, and Richard Stein (“Defendants”), on the other hand.

 

            Plaintiff filed this action on March 15, 2021.  On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants, asserting individual claims for violations of the Labor Code and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, a cause of action under PAGA, and a claim for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.  Plaintiff’s PAGA claim alleges that Defendant violated the Labor Code by failing to pay legally mandated overtime and minimum wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to indemnify necessary expenditures, and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

            The parties have reached a settlement of $55,000, of which $45,000 is allocated to Plaintiff’s individual claims and $10,000 is allocated to the PAGA claim. 

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 Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Zorik Mooradian. 

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees to pay a total settlement sum of $55,000, to be allocated as follows:

·       $20,000: payable to Plaintiff in his individual capacity, representing payment for damages in relation to Plaintiff’s FEHA causes of action;

 

·       $25,000: payable to Plaintiff in his individual capacity, representing payment for attorney’s fees and costs associated with Plaintiff’s FEHA causes of action; and

 

·       $10,000: PAGA Payment, of which 75%, or $2,775 (following the deductions for attorney fees) will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25%, or $925 (following the deductions for attorney fees) will be paid to all aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis.

(Mooradian Decl., Ex. A., Settlement Agreement, Sec. III, ¶¶ 7, 11, 10, Sec. I, ¶ I.)

The Settlement Agreement also provides for the payment of (1) Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees up to 33.33 percent of the $10,000 PAGA payment, currently estimated to be $3,300, and (2) Plaintiff’s costs of up to $3,000.  (Mooradian Decl., Ex. A., Settlement Agreement, Sec. I, ¶ L.) Following the deduction of these payments, as set forth above, 75 percent of the remaining PAGA Payment will be distributed to the LWDA and 25 percent of the remaining PAGA Payment will be distributed to all aggrieved employees, estimated to be a class of 30 employees.  (Mooradian Decl., Ex. A., Settlement Agreement, Sec. I, ¶ C [estimating the aggrieved employees class to be 30].)

The parties reached agreement following the exchange of informal and formal discovery and arms-length bargaining that occurred during a mediation with a neutral party.  (Mooradian Decl., ¶¶ 13, 9.)  Based on the argument and evidence set forth in the motion, and the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Zorik Mooradian, the court finds that the PAGA settlement set forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

 

 

ORDER

            For the reasons set forth above, the court grants plaintiff Rudy B. Orellana’s motion for approval of the PAGA settlement set forth in the Settlement and Release Agreement.

            The court will sign the proposed order approving settlement of claims lodged by Plaintiff and will order that this action is dismissed and shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 664.6 pursuant to the Settlement and Release Agreement. 

            The court orders plaintiff Rudy B. Orellana to give notice of this order. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 16, 2022

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court