Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 20-01141153, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Felipe Armenta-Espino, BuenaBentura Diaz-Espino, Indalecio Barajas Giodines, San Jose Yahuca, Juan Armenta, and Nicholas Armenta's Motion to Seal Exhibit A to Declaration of Zachary T. Tyson  ROA 109

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.  The parties are ordered to appear (in person or via Zoom) to discuss rescheduling, including the calendaring of a PAGA settlement approval motion.

This is an individual wage-and-hour action with a PAGA component.  Plaintiffs wish to seal the settlement agreement for their individual claims, which they temporarily lodged under seal.  It appears the individual settlement agreement was lodged in connection with a planned PAGA settlement approval motion, but no such motion is on file.  The Court cannot evaluate the propriety of permanently sealing the individual settlement agreement without a review of the PAGA approval papers.  Accordingly, the motion will be taken off calendar without prejudice to refiling with the motion to approve the parties’ PAGA settlement.  In the meantime, the individual settlement agreement lodged at ROA 106 is to remain under seal.

The Court notes, however, that § 3.1 of the individual settlement agreement purports to release claims under “the California Private Attorney General Act (‘PAGA’)—specifically any PAGA claims not released in the PAGA Settlement Agreement.”  To be clear, under Labor Code § 2699(l)(2), any PAGA settlement must be approved by the Court.  The individual settlement agreement thus cannot release any PAGA claims without Court approval, which would require a noticed motion, to say nothing of pre-filing exhaustion requirements, etc.