Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 23STCV12272, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV12272, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anthony Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public

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

Plaintiff Anthony Gonzalez (“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 “Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Settlement Agreement and Release” (the “Settlement Agreement”), entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and defendant Almansor Court, Inc. (“Defendant”), on the other hand.

The parties have reached a settlement of $250,000. (Mara Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 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 Agreement, including (i) the amounts of the gross settlement ($250,000), Plaintiff’s enhancement payment ($10,000), attorney’s fees ($83,333.33) and litigation costs ($9,270.19),[1] administration expenses ($2,900),[2] and the net settlement amounts of the PAGA payments, 75 percent of which ($108,372.28) will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent of which ($36,124.10) will be paid to the aggrieved employees, (ii) the calculation of payments and the settlement administration procedures, and (iii) the Notice of PAGA Settlement and Release; (2) the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, in which counsel (i) states that the parties engaged in discovery, resulting in the production of over one thousand documents, (ii) states that the parties reached settlement after the parties engaged in mediation, (iii) states that the parties’ “settlement is the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,” and (iv) describes the experience of counsel; and (3) the declaration of Plaintiff, in which Plaintiff describes his involvement and participation in this action in support of his request for an enhancement payment. (Mara Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 3.1, 3.2., 3.2.2.1, 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.4 and Ex. A; Mot., p. 8:6-8; Mara Decl., ¶¶ 1-11, 14-16, 36, 37; Springer Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.) Based on the arguments and evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, the court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.th at pp. 244-245.) The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.

The court grants plaintiff Anthony Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement.

The court will sign and file the “[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement; Judgment,” lodged with the court by plaintiff Anthony Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, on July 16, 2024 (as modified by the court).

The court orders plaintiff Anthony Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, to give notice of this ruling and the “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement; Judgment.”

[1] The Settlement Agreement allows for litigation costs in the amount of $12,500. (Mara Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.2.2.) However, counsel seeks reimbursement of litigation expenses in the lesser amount of $9,270.29. (Mara Decl., ¶ 36.)

[2] The Settlement Agreement allows for administration expenses in the amount of $5,000. (Mara Decl., Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.3.) However, the claims administrator has agreed to administer this case for $2,900. (Springer Decl., ¶ 9.)

anthony gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public ; Plaintiff, vs. almansor court, inc. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	23STCV12272

	Hearing Date:	November 20, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: plaintiff’s motion for approval of paga settlement