Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01204544, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Chandni Salwan's Notice of Motion and Motion for Approval of Private Attorneys General Act Representative Action Settlement ROA 95

Plaintiff’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to December 16, 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 December 7, 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.

As to the Settlement:

1.            Are there any other matters, whether individual, class, or PAGA, pending or in the pre-filing LWDA stage, that could be affected by approval of this settlement?

2.            How many pay periods are actually at issue?  Is the escalator triggered?

3.            Please provide a bid from the settlement administrator.

4.            Section III.7 of the agreement provides, “Plaintiff and PAGA Employees shall be deemed to acknowledge” they have not received tax advice.  Please delete the underlined language.  The Court will not approve an agreement that binds the aggrieved employees except by operation of PAGA itself.

5.            Counsel states that before mediation, Defendants turned over “policy documents, compensation plans, pay stubs and a list of aggrieved employees with dates of employment.”  Did Defendants turn over any time records, or only pay stubs? 

6.            How large a sample of employee data did Defendants turn over?

7.            The billing records mention an expert, but counsel’s declaration does not.  Was an expert retained to value this matter?  If so, please identify him or her and provide a CV.

8.            Counsel’s valuation of the PAGA claim is inadequate for the Court to discharge its approval duties.  “[A] trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.”  (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.) To that end, for each predicate Labor Code violation, please provide further information about the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s expected defenses, including the evidence supporting both sides’ cases. (See ibid. [citing Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116 and Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th

1794].)

As to the Notice:

1.            Please include language informing aggrieved employees that they will not be retaliated against for cashing a settlement check.

2.          Should notice be given in any languages other than English?