Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV02490, Date: 2025-05-05 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: 23STCV02490    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Mark Alan Valdes   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Approval of Private Attorneys General Settlement Agreement

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Mark Alan Valdes (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order approving the settlement of his claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, §¿2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”), set forth in the “Amended PAGA Settlement Agreement” (the “Settlement Agreement”), entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendant Twofer, LLC (“Defendant”), on the other hand.

The parties have reached a settlement of $120,000.  (Moon Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.1.)

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(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 Agreement, including (i) the amounts of the gross settlement ($120,000), Plaintiff’s representative payment ($10,000), attorney’s fees and costs (not to exceed $40,000), and administrator fees (not to exceed $3,000), (ii) the estimated amounts of the net settlement payment of $45,000, of which 75 percent, or $33,750, will be paid to Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and of which the remaining 25 percent, or $11,250, will be allocated to aggrieved employees, (ii) the release of claims by the employees, (iii) the settlement administration procedures; (2) the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Kane Moon, in which Moon asserts that (i) counsel conducted investigations and research before initiating this case, (ii) the parties engaged in informal discovery in advance of mediation, which included a production of Defendant’s policies and a sampling of 40 percent of aggrieved employees’ records and wage statements, (iii) both parties had the opportunity to review documents and data regarding Plaintiff’s and the aggrieved employees’ employment, and (iv) the parties participated in an all-day mediation and engaged in arms-length settlement negotiations, which led to the parties’ reaching the Settlement Agreement; and (3) the declaration of Plaintiff, in which he describes his involvement in this action.  (Moon Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 4.4-4.4.2, 5; Moon Decl., ¶¶ 15-18, 43; Valdes Decl., ¶¶ 3-11.)

The court also (1) has considered the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel to support the request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,000, and (2) finds that the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,000, as permitted by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, is reasonable since Plaintiff has established a lodestar figure of $54,820 ((29.4 hours x attorney Moon’s $900 hourly rate) + (12.6 hours x attorney Gunther’s $575 hourly rate) + (18.5 hours x attorney Song’s $650 hourly rate) + (20.2 hours x attorney Park’s $450 hourly rate)), which is more than the $40,000 requested.  (Moon Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.2; Moon Decl., ¶¶ 31-34 [Moon’s education, qualifications, and experience], 35-38 [Gunther’s education, qualifications, and experience], 39 [Song’s education, qualifications, and experience], 40 [Park’s education, qualifications, and experience], 57 [chart setting forth the hours expended by each attorney]; 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”].)  The court also finds that Plaintiff’s counsel has supported the request for an award of costs in the amount of $20,943.73, as permitted by the Settlement Agreement.  (Moon Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.2 [allowing payment of litigation costs of not more than $22,000]; Moon Decl., ¶ 60 and Ex. 5 [export showing $20,943.73 in expenses].)  The court will modify the proposed order and judgment to reflect the award of costs in this amount.

Based on the argument and evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and the declarations of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, the court finds that the Settlement Agreement 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 Mark Alan Valdes’s motion for approval of Private Attorneys General Act settlement.

            The court will modify, sign, and file the “[Proposed] Order and Judgment Granting Approval of Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2698, et seq.) Settlement Agreement,” lodged by plaintiff Mark Alan Valdes on December 19, 2024.

            The court orders plaintiff Mark Alan Valdes to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 5, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court