Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 18-01040053, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Rosa Chavez and Estanislao Crisantos' Notice of Motion and Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Pursuant to PAGA   ROA 248

The motion to approve PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to October 14, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. This continuance is necessitated by the Court’s August 29, 2022 Order approving a stipulation increasing the settlement amount from $325,000 to $603,743.

The moving parties should file and serve supplemental papers in support of the revised settlement by September 16, 2022. Any opposition to the supplemental filing must be filed and served no later than September 30, 2022. Any reply must be filed and served by October 7, 2022. Given the revised settlement amount, Plaintiff should serve the Court’s August 29 Order on the LWDA, and the parties and intervenors should serve the LWDA with their supplemental papers.

In reviewing the motion currently on file, the Court notes that Plaintiff fails to explain whether her assumptions regarding alleged Labor Code violations are supported by the sampling of evidence provided. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Supplemental Jafari Declaration (ROA 328) set forth the sampling of records reviewed by Plaintiff in connection with the mediation and negotiation of the settlement. However, Paragraphs 23-35, which set forth Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Labor Code violations, fail to explain what the record sampling actually show.

The foregoing analysis is necessary in order for the Court to properly evaluate the settlement. “[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.) To that end, for each predicate Labor Code violation, please provide further information about the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s expected defenses, including the evidence supporting both sides’ cases. (See ibid. [citing Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116 and Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794].)