Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 20-01134268, Date: 2023-07-28 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Keith Williams' Notice of Motion for Court Approval of PAGA Settlment ROA 266
Plaintiff’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to September 15, 2023 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 5, 2023. 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.
As to the Settlement:
1. Besides the Miranda action, are there any other matters—including in the pre-filing LWDA stage—that may be affected by this settlement?
2. The agreement recites the estimated pay periods through March 16, 2023, and provides that if that figure is off by more than 10%, (that is, the actual number of pay periods through March 16, 2023 is more than 10% higher), an escalator will apply. What is the actual number of pay periods? Is the escalator, as written, triggered?
3. The PAGA period extends through September 1, 2023. Why is the escalator tied to pay periods through a date nearly six months earlier? How many pay periods are there as of the date of this order? Should the escalator instead be tied to pay periods through September 1?
4. The parties waive the right to appeal provided the Court’s approval is consistent with the agreement, in particular the fee and cost awards. That is, it appears Plaintiff may appeal if the Court awards less in fees and costs than requested. In the event Plaintiff appeals, who will pay the fees and costs incurred in the appeal? Will those also be deducted from the GSA, decreasing the total amount available for civil penalties under PAGA?
5. Counsel claim $92,893.98 in costs. To what extent is counsel seeking to recover costs incurred in connection with the class certification motion? Why should the State—the real party in interest on the PAGA claim, but not a party to the class claims—shoulder the burden of expenses associated with class certification?
6. The costs bills attached to the Carney and Starr declarations both reflect tens of thousands of dollars in billing to experts A&P Economics and Econ One. Please explain why both firms were incurring charges to the same experts. Were the experts billing both firms for the same work?
7. Attorneys Carney and Antonelli should submit contemporaneously made billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes. It appears they have only submitted costs bills.
8. Starr’s billing records reflect numerous charges for what appears to be administrative tasks, including a number of line items for “matter admin.” Is this an attempt to recover for non-attorney administrative time?
9. Starr’s billing records reflect charges from Collette Navasartian and Adam Rose for “services rendered.” What services did they render?
10. It appears Starr’s billing records reflect time spent on the class certification motion. Again, why should the State cover fees for a class certification motion that did not involve the PAGA claim?
As to the Notice:
1. The notice should describe what is released by the settlement in more detail, in particular that employees’ underlying substantive claims are not released. (As drafted, the notice could be read to suggest that substantive claims are released.)
2. The notice should state that current employees will not be retaliated against for cashing their checks.
3. Should notice be given in any languages other than English?
4. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.
5. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.