Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV18367, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18367    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Dennis Herrera, on behalf of himself, the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved            

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Dennis Herrera (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the class action claims set forth in the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class/PAGA Notice (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendant Signature Flight Support LLC (“Defendant”), on the other hand.

Plaintiff filed this action on June 3, 2022.  Thereafter, on October 26, 2023, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the court’s order, and in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendant.  (Oct. 25, 2023, Joint Stip., p. 2:18-23.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Labor Code by, among other things, denying meal and rest breaks, failing to pay owed minimum and overtime wages, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, failing to maintain accurate payroll records, and failing to produce personnel records.  (FAC ¶¶ 15, 24, 28, 40, 45, 54.)

Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to settle this action for $1,185,840.

As a “fiduciary” for the absent class members, “the trial court’s duty [is] to have before it sufficient information to determine if the settlement [is] fair, adequate, and reasonable.”  (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1151, citing Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 governs settlements of class actions.  “Any party to a settlement agreement may serve and file a written notice of motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(c).) 

Similarly, 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].)   

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff requests that the court conditionally certify the Class for settlement purposes.  The “Class” is defined in the Settlement Agreement to mean “all non-exempt individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California during the Class Period[,]” i.e., the period from March 16, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval.  (Ardestani Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, pp. 1-2, ¶¶ 1.5, 1.12.)  The court finds that the Class meets the requirements for class certification as set forth by Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and therefore grants Plaintiff’s request that the court conditionally certify the Class for settlement purposes.  (Ardestani Decl., ¶¶ 50-53; see Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1807, fn. 19 [finding that the court may use a lesser standard to determine the appropriateness of a settlement class for settlement purposes].)   

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Sepideh Ardestani, and has been signed by Plaintiff and Defendant.  (Ardestani Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement pp. 22 [signature pages].)  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant has agreed to pay a total gross settlement amount of $1,185,840, to be allocated as follows:

·       Up to $10,000: payable to Plaintiff as a Class Representative Service Payment;

·       Up to $395,280: payable to class counsel for attorney’s fees (representing approximately 33.33 percent of the total gross settlement amount);

·       Up to $13,000: payable to class counsel for litigation expenses;

·       Up to $13,500: payable to the administrator of the settlement; and

·       Up to $100,000: PAGA penalties, of which 75 percent, or $75,000, will be allocated to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent, or $25,000, will be allocated to the individuals for the individual PAGA payments.

(Ardestani Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4.)

After those deductions are made, the remaining $654,060 will be distributed to the estimated 1,108 class members.  (Ardestani Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 1.23 [defining Individual Class Payment], 1.28 [defining Net Settlement Amount].)  Plaintiff’s counsel estimates that (1) the class members will receive an individual settlement of approximately $590, and (2) the PAGA group settlement members will receive approximately $38 per aggrieved employee.  (Ardestani Decl., ¶ 23.)  All class members will receive a Class Notice, which will (1) estimate the dollar amounts of any individual class payment and/or individual PAGA payment payable to the class member, and (2) state the number of class period workweeks and PAGA pay periods, if applicable, that were used to calculate those amounts.  (Ardestani Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 8.4.2.)

The Parties reached agreement following the exchange of discovery and arms-length bargaining that occurred after attending a full-day mediation with a wage and hour class action mediator.  (Ardestani Decl., ¶¶ 34-36, 38-40, 49, 17.)  Based on the arguments set forth in Plaintiff’s motion, and the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Sepideh Ardestani, the court finds that the class action settlement set forth in the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class/PAGA Notice is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Dennis Herrera’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement.

            The court will modify and sign the “[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement” lodged by plaintiff Dennis Herrera on July 18, 2023.

            The court sets a Final Approval Hearing on the class action settlement on May 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders plaintiff Dennis Herrera to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 11, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court