Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 18-01040053, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Rosa Chavez and Estanislao Crisantos' Notice of Motion and Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act  ROA 248

Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to November 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.  The Court will not hear oral argument on these issues on October 14, 2022.

Any supplemental briefs in support of the motion shall be filed on or before October 28, 2022.  The supplemental briefs shall be no longer than seven pages and limited to the items of concern identified below. Any supplemental briefs in opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before November 4, 2022.  The supplemental opposition briefs shall be no longer than seven pages and may only respond to points raised in the supplemental briefs in support; no additional argument in opposition will be permitted.  No supplemental reply briefs in support of the motion will be permitted.

If a revised settlement agreement and/or proposed notice is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions, and additions must be submitted as well.  In addition, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supplemental papers on the LWDA.

Items of Concern:

  1. Plaintiffs’ valuation relies heavily on Judge Andler’s class certification ruling in Cervantes v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., No. 14-684702.  Judge Andler denied certification of numerous claims against Defendant in part because Defendant provides janitorial services at hundreds of locations throughout California, ranging from small office buildings to high-rise towers, each with different supervisors and applicable policies.  Despite their reliance on the certification ruling, Plaintiffs contend a sample of time and pay records for 470 employees (just over 5% of the aggrieved employees statewide) is sufficient to value this case.  What steps did Plaintiffs take to ensure the sample is truly representative of aggrieved employees for the hundreds of locations and hundreds (if not thousands) of supervisors at issue? What date range and locations did the sample include?  Put another way, is the sample sufficiently large and diverse in light of the concerns about individualized inquiries expressed by Judge Andler?

 

  1. The Court needs more information about the value of the reimbursement claim.  The Court understands it to be based on mileage driven by employees between job sites while on the clock.  Plaintiffs assigned it a maximum value of $11.6 million.  The data sample provided to Plaintiffs had no information about reimbursement.  Plaintiffs applied the same global discounts for manageability as the other claims in valuing the reimbursement claim.  But the reimbursement claim, alone among the claims in Cervantes, was certified for class treatment.  Judge Andler adjudged this claim amenable to class treatment—perhaps a higher standard than the Wesson standard for PAGA manageability.  If Judge Andler certified this claim for class treatment, what justification is there for applying a manageability discount here?  Other than manageability, what defenses did Plaintiffs consider at the time the claim was settled?  What value do Plaintiffs assign to this claim and what is the basis of that valuation?

 

  1. Did Chavez or Crisantos sign arbitration agreements that arguably require individual arbitration of their PAGA claims under Viking River Cruises?  If so, please provide copies of those agreements.

 

  1. Chavez brings individual FEHA claims.  Have these claims been settled separately from the PAGA settlement?  If so, the Court requires a copy of the FEHA settlement agreement in order to evaluate the fairness of the PAGA settlement.

 

Additional Items:

Plaintiffs are to submit the following documents with their supplemental briefing.  The Court neither requests nor desires opposition briefing from Intervenors on these points.

  1. It appears neither the operative version of the settlement agreement (attached to ROA 393) nor the amendment that increases the GSA (attached to ROA 517) is signed.  Please submit executed copies.  The Court will not approve an unexecuted settlement.

 

  1. Please submit a bid from the settlement administrator.

 

  1. Judge Di Cesare’s minute order at ROA 280 asked Plaintiffs to submit a proposed order that addressed specific issues.  It appears Plaintiffs failed to do so.  Please submit a proposed order that addresses Judge Di Cesare’s concerns.

 

  1. Please revise the notice to provide a description of the scope of the PAGA claims released by the settlement.