Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV15615, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15615 Hearing Date: March 26, 2025 Dept: 45
DALIA DELGADO v. AVALON VILLA HEALTH CARE, LLC
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLement
PLAINTIFF’S Motion
for ATTORNEYS’ FEES and costs
Date of Hearing: March
26, 2025 Trial
Date: Not set
Department: 45 Case
No.: 23STCV15615
Complaint Filed:
July 5, 2023
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Dalia Delgado
Responding Party: None
Notice: Proper
BACKGROUND
This an employment Private Attorney General
Act (“PAGA”) action. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Dalia Delgado, on behalf of
herself, and all aggrieved employees (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendant Avalon Villa Health Care, LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 100 for
1) Violations of the Labor Code; 2) Penalties; and 3) Attorneys’ Fees.
On January 15, 2025, the Court held a Case
Management Conference and reserved on the March 26, 2025 calendar a hearing on
the instant Motions for Final Approval of Settlement and Attorneys’ Fees.
On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.
On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Final Approval of PAGA Settlement.
As of March 21, 2025, no oppositions have been
filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of PAGA Settlement
is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is
GRANTED in the amount of $100,000.
Plaintiff’s request for costs is GRANTED in
the amount of $14,162.99.
Plaintiff’s request for an enhancement award
is GRANTED in the amount of $7,500.
Plaintiff’s request for settlement
administration costs estimated to be $4,000 is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
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).)
ANALYSIS
Here, the parties have agreed on the
terms of a settlement. Under the
proposed settlement, Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $300,000
with $125,662.99 of the $300,000 Settlement Amount allocated to attorneys’ fees
($100,000) and litigation costs (estimated to be $14,162.99), an enhancement
award to Plaintiff ($7,500), and settlement administration costs (estimated to
be $4,000). (Spencer
Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. 1 at §§ VI, X, XI.) The Settlement Agreement allocates
approximately $174,337.01 to the settlement of the PAGA claims (the “Net
Settlement Amount”) with
75-percent ($130,752.76) to
be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25-percent ($43,584.25)
to be paid to the approximately
300 aggrieved employees according
to the formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (Spencer Decl., Exh. 1 at §§ I.G, I.I, I.J, I.K,
VIII.A.)
The formula for distribution between the 300 employees is as follows: “$43,584.25
shall be divided by the total number of pay periods which the PAGA Group worked
for Defendant during the PAGA Release Period, with partial pay periods rounded
up to the next whole number and as determined by Defendant’s records. This
amount shall be known as the “Pay Period Value.” Each member of the PAGA Group
shall be paid an amount equal to the number of individual pay periods he or she
worked for Defendant during the PAGA Release Period multiplied by the Pay
Period Value.” (Spencer
Decl., Exh. 1 at § VIII.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 declares
that the settlement was submitted to the LWDA at the same time the motion was
filed. (Spencer Decl., ¶ 49.)
Accordingly, the Court finds that
this requirement is satisfied.
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 November 21, 2024,
the parties attended a formal mediation session with Kelly A. Knight,
Esq. and settled the
matter. (Spencer Decl., ¶¶ 14-16.)
The settlement was therefore reached through arm’s-length bargaining.
In advance of the mediation, the Parties agreed to exchange informal
discovery whereby Defendant produced information and documents relevant to the
PAGA claims, including that there are approximately 300 individuals who meet
the PAGA Group definition who worked approximately 10,000 pay periods during
the PAGA Release Period. (Spencer Decl., ¶ 7, Exhs. 2-3.) That documentation
along with other relevant data obtained during discovery enabled Plaintiff to
evaluate the PAGA claims in preparation for mediation. (Id.)
Accordingly, there was sufficient
investigation to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Eric A. Grover has significant experience in
complex wage and hour litigation, beginning in 1988. (See Spencer Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) Plaintiff’s Counsel Robert W. Spencer also
has over 18 years of experience in complex wage and hour litigation. (Id.
at ¶ 5.)
Accordingly, counsel is experienced
in similar litigation.
The Settlement Agreement meets all of
the fairness factors. The Court finds that the settlement is entitled to a
presumption of fairness.
The Release is Permissible
If the Court approves the PAGA
settlement, “Plaintiff, individually and as a representative acting as a proxy or
agent of the LWDA, a State of California Executive Branch Agency, in this
Litigation, agrees to release Defendant and Defendant’s officers, directors,
owners, shareholders partners, current and former employees, parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, attorneys, insurers, and all agents thereof
(collectively, the ‘Released Parties’), of and from any and all claims under
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (‘PAGA’), Labor
Code §§ 2698, et seq., that were or could have been alleged on behalf of
nonexempt employees based on the factual allegations and identified Labor Code
sections in the LWDA Letter and/or operative pleading for the Litigation.” (Settlement at p. 8.)
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.
The Attorneys’ 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).) “Courts recognize two methods for calculating
attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the
percentage of recovery method.” (Wershba
v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.)
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel will
receive $100,000 of the $300,000 Settlement Amount in fees, and
litigation costs estimated to be $14,162.99. (Spencer Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. 1 at §§ VI, X, XI.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he
spent 173.4 hours in this matter at $725 per hour and Eric A. Grover spent 22.7
hours in this matter at $1000 per hour, making the lodestar amount $147,690. (Id.)
This exceeds the $100,000 requested by Counsel, and is reasonable and
supported. The costs are also reasonable.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s
fees and costs are reasonable.
The Enhancement Award is Reasonable
The Settlement provides a $7,500 enhancement award to Plaintiff. (Spencer Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. 1 at
§§ VI, X, XI.) Plaintiff’s contributions to this case include always making
herself available to Counsel during litigation to provide evidence and other
information important to the prosecution as well as responded to written
discovery. (Spencer
Decl., ¶ 30.) She has also provided a general release of her claims. (Id.) Plaintiff declares
that Defendant propounded discovery, which included 102 Special
Interrogatories, 39 Form Interrogatories – General, 22 Form Interrogatories –
Employment, and 155 Requests for Production which Plaintiff had to spend many
hours over multiple weeks working with her attorneys to respond to, searching
for and producing close to 100 pages of documents. (Delgado Decl., ¶ 6.)
Based on the above, a $7,500 enhancement award to Plaintiff is
reasonable.
The Estimated Settlement Administration
Costs are Reasonable
The Settlement also provides for an estimated $4,000 in settlement
administration costs to the settlement administrator Simpluris, Inc.
(“Simpluris”). (Spencer
Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. 1 at §§ VI, X, XI.) The settlement provides that Defendant will provide Simpluris
with the identifying information for each PAGA Group member, after which
Simpluris will mail the Notice and the Individual Settlement Payment check to
each member of the PAGA Group no later than 28 calendar days after the
Settlement Administrator receives the full Settlement Amount. (Spencer Decl., ¶ 24.)
The Settlement provides that any
charges and expenses of the Settlement Administrator greater than the allocated
$4,000 will come from the Settlement Amount and will be subject to approval by
the Court. (Spencer Decl., Exh. 1 at VI.) If the actual Administrative Costs
are less than the Parties’ estimation, the difference between the actual and
estimated Administrative Costs will be included in the Net Settlement Amount. (Id.)
Based on the work forecasted to be
performed by the Claims Administrator Simpluris, and the provision for inclusion of any surplus in the net settlement
or court approval for excess costs, an estimated $4,000 in settlement administration
costs is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of PAGA Settlement
is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is
GRANTED in the amount of $100,000.
Plaintiff’s request for costs is GRANTED in
the amount of $14,162.99.
Plaintiff’s request for an enhancement award
is GRANTED in the amount of $7,500.
Plaintiff’s request for settlement
administration costs estimated to be $4,000 is GRANTED.