Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV34375, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34375    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff Irene Rios filed this action against Defendants Samaritana Medical Clinic Inc., Providers Medical Management Inc., and William A. Martinez for penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

The parties have agreed on the terms of a settlement.  Under the proposed settlement, Defendants will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $150,000.00.  Of that amount, $30,000.00 will be paid directly to PAGA Counsel and Plaintiff, leaving a PAGA Settlement Amount of $120,000.00.  (Messrelian Decl., Ex. 1 at p. 5, ¶ 3.1.)  From the PAGA Settlement Amount, up to 33% will be paid as attorney fees, up to $5,000.00 will be paid as costs, and up to $4,864.21 will be paid to a settlement administrator.  Of the remaining amount, 75-percent will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25-percent will be 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).)  Plaintiff’s counsel attaches proof that the settlement was submitted to the LWDA at the same time the motion was filed.  (Messrelian Decl., Ex. 2.)

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”].)

On September 19, 2023, the Parties attended a full day mediation session with 16 experienced mediator Hon. Frederick P. Aguirre, where they reached a settlement.  (Messrelian Decl. ¶ 9.)  The settlement was therefore reached through arm’s-length bargaining.

The parties engaged in discovery regarding Defendants’ policies, practices, operations, time and payroll information, Plaintiff’s personnel file (including time and payroll data for Plaintiff), and the time records and payroll records for a group of 25 employees  (21% sample) who were within the PAGA period.  (Messrelian Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  Accordingly, there was sufficient investigation to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently.

There is no information about counsel’s experience in similar litigation.  However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel was also counsel of record in at least two other PAGA cases, Case Nos. 21STCV41387 and 21STCV43225, in this Department.

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

C.        The Release is Permissible.

If the Court approves the PAGA settlement, the aggrieved employees will release “any and all claims that were made or could have been asserted in the Action.”  On only her own behalf, Plaintiff also waives the protections of Civil Code section 1542.

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 33% of the PAGA Settlement Amount for attorney fees (estimated at $40,000.00) and up to $5,000.00 in costs and expenses from the PAGA Settlement Amount.  (Messrelian Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 3.2.1.)

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 16th day of January 2024