Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2021-00002171-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023
09/08/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00002171-CU-OE-CTL LIMON VS ROMAN BERNAL PAINTING CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/15/2023
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement Limon v. Roman Bernal Painting Corp., Case No. 2021-02171 Sept. 8, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
This wage and hour action arises out of plaintiff's employment as a painter with the defendant corporation between 2016 and 2020. Although the case is some 950 days old, it was not assigned to Dept. 72 until May of this year following Judge Meyer's retirement and Judge Freestone's recusal. ROA
115-118.
Judge Enright was kind enough to preside over a settlement conference, at which time the parties reached agreement. ROA 121-122.
The parties now seek court approval of their settlement. ROA 123-129. By design, the motion is unopposed. The court has reviewed the papers.
2. Applicable Standards.
A. PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2). '[A] trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.' Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77. Many of the same factors used to evaluate the fairness of a class action settlement can be 'useful' in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement. Id. These include: - Strength of plaintiff's case. This is the most important factor.
- Expense associated with taking the case to trial, i.e., the avoided cost of further litigation.
- Amount or value offered in settlement.
- Extent of discovery completed and state of proceedings.
- Experience and views of counsel.
- Presence of a governmental participant.
- Reaction of class members to proposed settlement.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2998191 29 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LIMON VS ROMAN BERNAL PAINTING CORPORATION 37-2021-00002171-CU-OE-CTL Moniz suggests items 1-6 from this list may provide guidance in the PAGA setting; obviously item 7 does not apply, because the non-party aggrieved workers in a PAGA case are entitled to no notice and have no opt out rights. Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969.
B. 'The law empowers the court to set the amount of fees independently without disapproving the entire settlement.' Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 129. The benchmark for determining attorney fees is reasonableness. Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc.
(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 744. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on factors specific to the case, to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.
3. Discussion and Ruling.
A. The court discusses the factors from Section 2B as follows: 1. Strength of plaintiff's case: Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges the presence of 'many obstacles' to obtaining a favorable adjudication on several of the claims. (Rutledge Decl., ¶ 55.) For example, while plaintiff maintains that the Labor Code section and unpaid overtime claims are viable (id. at ¶ 60), there is insufficient evidence supporting the prevailing wage/overtime claims (id. at ¶ 56). The very essence of a settlement is compromise, i.e., the 'yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes.' Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1234, 1242.
2. Expense associated with taking the case to trial, i.e., the avoided cost of further litigation: Although not expressly monetized in the moving papers, the court can easily imagine attorneys' fees and costs exceeding $100,000 per side just to take the matter to trial.
3. Amount or value offered in settlement: The total amount offered in settlement is $500,000, with no reversion. The parties intend to allocate these funds as follows: -Attorneys' fees: $166,700 to plaintiff's counsel -Litigation costs/expenses: $4,711 to plaintiff's counsel -Administration costs: $6,000 to Phoenix -Individual settlement payment to plaintiff in exchange for a general release: $50,000 These deductions result in a net settlement amount of $272,589. After sending 75%, or $204,442, to the LWDA, the 184 aggrieved employees will receive $68,147. This comes out to an average payment of approximately $370.36 for each aggrieved employee.
4. Extent of discovery completed and state of proceedings: Written discovery and informal exchange of information. (Rutledge Decl., ¶¶ 36-38, 40-42, 44, 49-50.) 5. Experience and views of counsel: Plaintiff's counsel have significant experience litigating wage and hour actions, including claims seeking PAGA penalties, and recommend the settlement. (Rutledge Decl., ¶¶ 21, 23, 63; Pendergast Decl., ¶¶ 34; Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) 6. Presence of a governmental participant: Plaintiff's counsel provided notice of the settlement after filing it with the court. (Rutledge Decl., ¶ 34.) Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the PAGA settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of PAGA's policies and purposes. Accordingly, the court approves the parties' proposed settlement.
B. As for the attorneys' fees, the proposal of $166,700 represents one-third of the total settlement Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2998191 29 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LIMON VS ROMAN BERNAL PAINTING CORPORATION 37-2021-00002171-CU-OE-CTL amount. According to the supporting declarations submitted with the moving papers, the two law firms representing plaintiff expended a total of 302 hours prosecuting this action. (Rutledge Decl., ¶ 90; Pendergast Decl., ¶ 6; Taylor Decl., ¶ 6.) This results in a blended hourly rate of approximately $551.99 ($166,700 divided by 302), which is within the range of reasonableness for attorneys with similar skills and experience in the San Diego community. Moreover, the requested fee award is about $75,000 less than counsel's theoretical lodestar of $242,318 (using their design hourly rates, which are significantly higher than the one calculated by the court immediately above). (See Rutledge Decl., ¶ 90; Pendergast Decl., ¶ 5; Taylor Decl., ¶ 5.) Accepting for these purposes the validity of the design rates, the requested fees represent, in effect, a negative multiplier.
The court practiced law in San Diego for 20 years prior to 2005. During this time, the court ran cases, supervised associates, reviewed, sent out and collected bills, and successfully made and resisted fee applications. In addition, since being appointed to the bench in 2005, the undersigned has ruled on hundreds of fee applications in a variety of settings. This experience has allowed the court to gain and retain an understanding of fees charged by attorneys in the community for similar work during the relevant timeframe. Based on this experience, and the evidence submitted with the moving papers, the court finds that $166,700 is reasonable under the circumstances and is hereby granted. See Nemecek & Cole v. Horn (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 641, 651 ('The amount to be awarded as attorney fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to evaluate the services rendered by an attorney in his courtroom.'); see also 569 East County Boulevard, LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436-37 ('In making its [lodestar] calculation, the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees.').
C. The litigation costs of $4,711, payable to plaintiff's counsel, and the administration costs of $6,000, payable to Phoenix, are reasonable for a case of this type and are hereby approved.
D. The individual settlement payment of $50,000 to plaintiff in exchange for a general release of all claims is approved.
E. The court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers (ROA 129).
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2998191 29