Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV37647, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37647    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Hector Lopez filed this action against Defendant Sunrise Foods LLC dba Jack in the Box for penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

The parties have agreed on the terms of a settlement.  Under the proposed settlement, Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $135,000.00.  Of that amount, up to $47,250.00 will be paid as attorney fees, up to $12,000.00 will be paid as costs, and up to $7,500.00 will be paid to Plaintiff.  Some portion will also be paid to a settlement administrator.  Of the remaining amount, estimated to be $61,645.25 (Bradley Decl. ¶ 17), 75-percent will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25-percent will paid to the aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis. 

A court must review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l).)  “[C]ivil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.”  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i).)

A.        Plaintiff Has Provided Notice of the Settlement to LWDA.

A proposed PAGA settlement must be submitted to LWDA at the same time that it is submitted to the court for review and approval.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)  Counsel declares the settlement agreement has already been served on LWDA.  (Bradley Decl. ¶ 66 & Ex. 3.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that this requirement is satisfied.

B.        The Settlement is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness.

A presumption of fairness¿for a settlement agreement 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.  (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.¿(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)  The final factor does not apply to PAGA.  (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 984 [representative actions under PAGA do not violate the due process rights of “nonparty aggrieved employees who are not given notice of, and an opportunity to be heard”].)

The parties conducted mediation with Steven Pearl, Esq. on January 12, 2023, leading to a finalized agreement signed on March 22, 2023.  (Bradley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7-8.)  Leading up to the mediation, Defendant provided data showing the approximate number of aggrieved employees, workdays, and pay periods, along with written policies, timekeeping data, and payroll data.  Plaintiff prepared a mediation brief that examined the evidence, claims, and defenses.  Plaintiff’s counsel declared that they and defense counsel took their obligations in discovery extremely seriously, and they worked diligently to provide each other with sufficient information and documentation.  (Bradley Decl. ¶ 5.)  The settlement was therefore reached through arm’s-length bargaining with sufficient investigation to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently.

Plaintiff’s counsel has significant experience in class actions since 1994.  (Bradley Decl. ¶ 26; see also Bradley Decl. ¶¶ 31-35.)  Since May 2000, counsel has spent most of his time representing workers in wage-and-hour matters, including multi-district litigation and coordinated proceedings.  (Bradley Decl. ¶¶ 27-28.)  Counsel is therefore experienced in similar litigation.

The Court finds that the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

C.        The Release is Permissible.

Through the settlement agreement, Plaintiff releases all of his claims against Defendant through the effective date, including the rights and benefits of Civil Code section 1542.  (Bradley Decl., Ex. 1 at pp. 6-7, ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff also releases, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees, “all claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action for civil penalties under the PAGA that arose during employment in a non-exempt position in California during the Settlement Period, that were brought or could have been brought based on the factual allegations pled in the operative complaint in the Action,” including claims for meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and timely payment of wages at separation of employment.  (Bradley Decl., Ex. 1 at p. 6, ¶ 21.)

This release is limited to claims for civil penalties that arise from or relate to allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action, and it is permissible.

D.        The Attorney Fees and Costs Are Reasonable.

A prevailing employee is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the action.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g)(1).)  Plaintiff’s counsel will receive up to 35% of the Gross Settlement Amount for attorney fees ($47,250.00) and $12,000.00 in costs and expenses from the Gross Settlement Amount.  (Bradley Decl., Ex. 1 at pp. 5-6, ¶ 20.)

Counsel declares they have spent 90.9 attorney and paralegal hours, totaling $74,965.00 at their respective hourly rates.  (Bradley Decl. ¶¶ 42, 45.)  Counsel also incurred $11,554.75 in out-of-pocket expenses.  (Bradley Decl. ¶ 45.) 

The Court finds that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable.

E.        Conclusion

The motion for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 18th day of May 2023