Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV23857, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV23857    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Jennifer Fine, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated           

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Settlement Approval of Claims and Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Jennifer Fine, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), moves the court for an order approving the settlement of her 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”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendant Unifi Aviation, LLC, f/k/a DAL Global Services, Inc. (“Defendant”), on the other hand.  (Lidman Decl., Ex. 2, Settlement.)  

Plaintiff and Defendant have reached a settlement of $100,000.  (Lidman Decl., Ex. 2, Settlement, ¶¶ 1.11, 3.1.)

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.)¿¿¿¿ 

The court has reviewed (1) the terms of the Settlement, including (i) the amounts of the gross settlement ($100,000), attorney’s fees to be paid to counsel ($33,333.33), litigation costs to be paid to counsel ($10,616.92), the expenses to be paid to the administrator ($5,995), the enhancement award to Plaintiff ($5,000), and the PAGA penalties ($45,054.83, of which 75 percent, or $33,791.12 will be distributed to the LWDA and 25 percent, or $11,263.71, will be distributed to the aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis), and (ii) the releases of claims by Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees; (2) the declaration of Plaintiff, which supports her request for the $5,000 enhancement award; (3) the declaration of attorney Scott Lidman, in which Lidman states that (i) Defendant informally produced to Plaintiff certain relevant information and documents, and (ii) the parties participated in mediation on October 18, 2023, during which the parties “vigorously debated their opposing legal positions[,]” thereafter reaching a settlement; (4) the declarations of attorneys Scott Lidman, Milan Moore, and Paul K. Haines, which support Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $33,333.33 since those attorneys have established a lodestar figure above that amount; and (5) the declaration of Jodey Lawrence, which supports the request for administration costs in the amount of $5,995.  (Lidman Decl., Ex. 2, Settlement, ¶¶ 1.10-1.11, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 5; Lidman Decl., ¶¶ 1-8 [attesting to his education and experience], 13, 15 [summary of Settlement’s terms], 24 [attorney Lidman expended 65.8 hours in this action, attorney Haines expended 14.7 hours, and attorney Moore expended 34.6 hours], 25; Lidman Decl., Ex. 5 [chart showing $10,616.59 in expenses]; Fine Decl., ¶¶ 7-10; Moore Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Haines Decl., ¶¶ 2-6; Lawerence Decl., ¶ 16; Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 682, 691 [“To determine a reasonable attorney fee award, the trial court applies the lodestar method”].)

Based on the argument and evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and the declarations of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorneys, and the claims administrator, the court finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.  (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.th at pp. 244-245.)  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion. 

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Jennifer Fine’s motion for settlement approval of claims and attorney’s fees, costs, and enhancement award.

            The court will sign and file the “[Proposed] Order and Judgment Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval of Claims Brought Under the Private Attorneys General Act and Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award,” lodged by plaintiff on March 29, 2024, as modified by the court.

            The court orders plaintiff Jennifer Fine to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 7, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court