Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 19-01121269, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Largo Concrete, Inc. and Michael Long's Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement ROA 101

Defendant’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to October 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.   Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before September 28, 2022.  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.

1. As amended, the settlement agreement gives the Court the discretion to have unclaimed funds sent to the Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund or to a cy pres recipient.  The Court will order unclaimed funds sent to the Controller.  Please update the notice accordingly.

2. The Court understands that individual claims for damages are not the same as claims for civil penalties under PAGA.  Yet the Court is troubled by the fact that Plaintiff’s settlement of his individual claims is worth over $50,000 more than the settlement of a PAGA claim covering 179 aggrieved employees.  This may raise an inference of collusion, in that Plaintiff perhaps agreed to settle PAGA claims for a low amount (and, in this case, for longer than the statutory limitations period) in exchange for an outsized settlement of his individual claims.  Please explain the realistic value of Plaintiff’s individual claims if the case had proceeded to trial.

3. How large a sample of time and pay data did Defendant turn over for review?  Simply stating the number of pages is not enough.  Please inform the Court what portion of the aggrieved employees’ time and pay data was reviewed.  For example, was it a 10% sample of all data?  20%?  Some other number?  How was the sample chosen to ensure it was representative of the entire group of aggrieved employees for the entire PAGA period?  (Alternatively, if Defendant turned over all time and pay data, please so state.)

4. The release covers civil penalties for violation of LC § 1102.5.  Unlike the usual PAGA penalty structure, the civil penalty for § 1102.5 violations is up to $10,000 per violation.  What investigation did Plaintiff undertake to determine whether any other aggrieved employees had suffered § 1102.5 violations?  (Mere review of time and pay records wouldn’t suffice.)  Were there any other examples of retaliation?  How does this figure into the valuation of the PAGA claim?