Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV01892, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01892    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Lexy Barajas and Jason Marmon, as aggrieved employees and private attorney generals

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

Plaintiffs Lexy Barajas and Jason Marmon (“Plaintiffs”) seek an order approving the settlement of their claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, §¿2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”) set forth in the PAGA Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendant H.W. Hunter, Inc. (“Defendant”), on the other hand.

The parties have reached a settlement of $437,500.  (Genish Decl., ¶ 22.)

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, abrogated in part on other grounds in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639, 662 [holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes the division of PAGA claims into individual and non-individual claims through arbitration agreements].)  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.)   

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached to the declaration of Jonathan M. Genish as Exhibit 3.  Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant has agreed to pay a total gross settlement amount of $437,500, to be allocated as follows:

·       Up to $145,833.33: payable to Plaintiffs’ counsel for attorney’s fees;

·       $14,506.31: payable to Plaintiffs’ counsel for litigation expenses;[1]

·       Up to $5,000: payable to plaintiff Lexy Barajas for a plaintiff enhancement payment;

·       Up to $5,000: payable to plaintiff Jason Marmon for a plaintiff enhancement payment;

·       Up to $5,000: payable to the administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., for administration expenses;

·       $262,160.36: Estimated PAGA payment, of which $196,620.27, or 75 percent, will be paid to the California Labor and Workface Development Agency, and $65,540.09, or 25 percent, will be paid to all aggrieved employees.

(Genish Decl., Ex. 3, Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 1.2, 1.12, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3; Genish Decl., ¶¶ 22-23, 48; Marmon Decl., ¶¶ 4-15; Barajas Decl., ¶¶ 4-15.)

Within 14 days after Defendant funds the gross settlement amount, the administrator will (1) issue checks for the individual PAGA payments to the aggrieved employees, and (2) send, along with the payments, a cover letter that notifies the aggrieved employees of Plaintiffs’ action and the parties’ settlement.  (Genish Decl., Ex. 3, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.4.1 and Ex. A.)

The parties reached agreement following the exchange of formal and informal discovery and arms-length bargaining that occurred during a mediation conducted by Hon. Carl J. West (Ret.).  (Genish Decl., ¶¶ 14-17, 30, 42.)  Based on the argument and evidence set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion and the declarations of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jonathan M. Genish, and the president of the proposed administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., the court finds that the PAGA settlement set forth in the PAGA Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiffs Lexy Barajas and Jason Marmon’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement.

            The court will sign and file the proposed “Order and Judgment Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and Award of PAGA Counsel Fees Payment, PAGA Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, Enhancement Payments, and Administration Expenses Payment,” lodged by plaintiffs Lexy Barajas and Jason Marmon on October 9, 2023, as modified by the court.

The court orders plaintiffs Lexy Barajas and Jason Marmon to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 29, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court