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
vs. |
Case
No.: |
21STCV10092 |
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
August
16, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
[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:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court