Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV00666, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00666    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 39

Claudia Castillo, et al. v. Westlake Properties, Inc., et al.

Case No. 21STCV00666

Motion for Leave to Intervene

Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

            The Court posts this tentative order in advance of the hearing.  However, the Court will reconsider this tentative order if the parties revise their settlement agreement to include only employees of the catering business and not all of Defendants’ employees.  The parties should be prepared to discuss this issue at the hearing. 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

            Plaintiffs filed the instant case on January 7, 2021, which included a cause of action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), California Labor Code section 2699, et seq.  Plaintiffs seek approval of the settlement of the PAGA claim.  Noel Van Wagner and Veronica Andrade (the “Intervenors”) filed their own action against Defendants on May 15, 2022: Noel Van Wagner, et al. v. Westlake Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV16191.  Previously, the Court found that the two cases are not related.  Now, the Intervenors seek leave to file a complaint-in-intervention in the instant case. 

              Plaintiffs filed the PAGA claim on behalf of themselves and other current or former employees based upon Defendants’ alleged wage and hour violations.  (Complaint, ¶ 226.)  Plaintiffs allege that on November 2, 2020, more than 63 calendar days before filing the instant complaint, Plaintiffs provided electronic notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”) and notice by certified mail to Defendants of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code Defendants allegedly violated.  (Complaint, ¶ 227.)  Plaintiffs received no response from the LWDA before filing the complaint on January 7, 2021.  (Complaint, ¶ 228.) 

            The Court must permit a nonparty to intervene if the nonparty “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).)  The settlement of this PAGA claim resolves the Intervenors’ PAGA claim.  (Declaration of John A. Lofton, ¶ 5.)  Plaintiffs are servers and cleaners at Defendants’ catering business who claim wage and hour violations related to their work.  By contrast, the Intervenors worked as massage therapists at the spa, and their claims relate to how the spa was managed.  Specifically, the Intervenors allege that “the Westlake spa scheduled massages back-to-back in a manner that prevented massage therapists from taking full and timely meal and rest breaks and required them to work off the clock to take care of massage clients.”  (Id., ¶ 2.)  These claims are distinct enough that the Court grants the Intervenors’ motion. 

            The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the PAGA settlement without prejudice.  In addition to the reason stated above, the Court denies the motion because Plaintiffs represent that the release would waive “all claims under PAGA for civil penalties under the California Labor Code, Wage Orders, regulations and/or other provisions of law alleged . . . to have been violated . . . during the PAGA Covered Period . . . .”  (Declaration of Fumio Robert Nakahiro, ¶ 21.)  The Court will not approve a settlement that purports to waive claims beyond those based on the factual allegations of the pleadings in this matter.  (See Amaro v. Anaheim Area Mgmt., LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 537-538.) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Intervenors’ motion to file a complaint-in-intervention is granted.  The Intervenors shall file the complaint within ten (10) days.

            2.         Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the PAGA settlement is denied without prejudice. 

            3.         The Court discharges the OSC re: Dismissal and shall hold a case management conference on December 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

            4.         Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.