Judge William D. Claster, Case 20-01166066 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 20-01166066, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Village Green Foods, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement of Individual Claims and Dismissal of Entire Action Without Prejudice ROA 148

The parties’ joint motion to (1) approve the settlement of Plaintiff’s individual claims (including the individual component of his PAGA claim) and (2) dismiss the action without prejudice is CONTINUED to January 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 for the parties to address the following issues. Any supplemental briefing is to be filed by January 3, 2023.

Alternatively, if, as part of the settlement, Plaintiff were to dismiss his individual PAGA claim with prejudice and limit the settlement payment to his individual wage and hour claims, then the following analysis and further hearing would be unnecessary. If the parties elect to take this alternate approach, then they should file a declaration with the revised settlement agreement, along with a proposed order of dismissal.

Plaintiff previously dismissed his class claims pursuant to CRC 3.770, leaving only his individual wage-and-hour claims and his PAGA claim to litigate. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims to arbitration and stayed the PAGA claim. Instead of arbitrating the individual claims immediately, the parties tried to settle all outstanding claims, but they could not reach agreement. Following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, Plaintiff initiated arbitration of his individual wage-and-hour claims and the individual component of his PAGA claim. The parties then reached a settlement that covers Plaintiff’s individual wage-and-hour claims and the individual portion of his PAGA claim, with no effect on the “representative” portion of his PAGA claim, i.e., claims for civil penalties arising from Labor Code violations suffered by other employees. The parties now move for an order approving this settlement and dismissing the case without prejudice.

Whether “individual” or “representative,” Plaintiff’s PAGA claim still belongs to the State, not to Plaintiff himself. (See Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) As a result, the settlement of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim must be approved by the Court. (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2); Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56.)

To that end, and assuming the parties elect not to follow the above-described alternative procedure, the Court requires the following:

A copy of the settlement agreement.

Proof that the settlement agreement has been served on the LWDA. (See Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).)

Sufficient information for the Court to discharge its duties under Moniz, including the theory of each predicate Labor Code violation allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, the evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and an estimated value of the individual PAGA claim.