Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01204544, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Chandni Salwan's Notice of Motion and Motion for Approval of Private Attorneys General Act Representative Action Settlement ROA 95
The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the prior minute order. The Court is inclined to grant approval of the parties’ PAGA settlement assuming Plaintiff satisfactorily addresses the following issue at the hearing.
In the original moving papers, counsel declared there are approximately 93 aggrieved employees. (ROA 93, ¶ 18.) The administrator’s bid submitted with the supplemental papers (ROA 106, Ex. C) is based on approximately 518 class members. What is the reason for this discrepancy? What effect, if any, does it have on claim valuation or the administrator’s bid?
Assuming this is addressed to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court will find the parties’ settlement as amended 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, 72.) The Court will also approve the current form of the notice.
The Court will approve the following distributions:
The administrator is to file a declaration no later than July 28, 2023 to confirm that the distribution of funds to aggrieved employees is complete. Upon receipt of the administrator’s declaration, the Court will determine whether further briefing or a hearing is necessary.
Please submit a revised proposed order that conforms to the foregoing for the Court’s signature.