Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV06880, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06880    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff Christina Franco filed this action against Defendant M&B Restaurant Group 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 $120,000.00.  Of that amount, up to $40,000.00 will be paid as attorney fees, up to $5,000.00 will be paid as costs, and up to $10,000.00 will be paid to a settlement administrator.  (Messrelian Decl., Ex. 1 [“Settlement”], ¶ 5.)  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) [effective June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2024].)   A different apportionment of penalties applies to cases filed on or after June 19, 2024.  (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (v)(i) [effective July 1, 2024].)

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. 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 settlement was reached after negotiations directly between counsel after investigation and  discovery regarding Defendant's policies, practices, operations, time and payroll information, and other topics.  (Messrelian Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  Counsel is very experienced in employment litigation, including PAGA cases.  (See Messrelian Decl. ¶ 2.)

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 settlement “will bind all those who would be bound by ajudgment ifthe Lawsuit had been brought by the LWDA, including Plaintiff, the LWDA, and the Aggrieved Employees, with respect to the recovery of civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Il 269S, et. seq. only, against the Released Parties.  It is expressly understood and agreed that this Settlement only includes a full release of the PAGA Claims (‘Released PAGA Claims’).”  (Settlement at p. 3.)  The settlement “shall not impact Aggrieved Employees’ ability to assert claims (claims for wages and other damages) other than the PAGA claims being released by this Settlement.  Plaintiff does not release any Aggrieved Employee’s claims for wages or damages.”

This release is limited to PAGA claims 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 $40,000.00 (one-third of the total) and actual litigation costs up to $5,000.00.

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 27th day of March 2025