Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01212424, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jeffrey Woertink's Notice of Motion and Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement  ROA 41

Plaintiff’s motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to February 3, 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 January 23, 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.

1.            The PAGA Period as defined runs through approval, but the case appears to have been valued based on the number of employees and workweeks as of June 2022. Either the PAGA Period should have a defined end date, or there should be an escalator clause for the GSA that accounts for additional workweeks that accrue before approval.

2.            Please submit a bid from the administrator.

3.            Paragraph 9.5 gives Defendant the right to seek indemnity from Aggrieved Employees. The Aggrieved Employees are not party to this case. As a result, the Court will not approve language that affects the rights of the Aggrieved Employees except as required by operation of PAGA.

4.            What investigation did counsel do of § 1102.5 violations affecting anyone other than Plaintiff? If the Court is to approve the release of 890 employees’ worth of PAGA claims based on § 1102.5 violations (which carry penalties of $10,000 apiece), it must have considerably more information to discharge its settlement approval duties under Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 72. Alternatively, the Court would be willing to consider a release of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim based on § 1102.5 violations.

5.            Please submit contemporaneously made billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes.

6.            Is Plaintiff separately settling any claims arising from the Labor Code violations complained of in this action? (E.g., for wrongful termination in violation of public policy?) If so, the Court requires a copy of the individual settlement agreement to review the fairness of this settlement.

7.            The notice should state that employees will not be retaliated against for cashing their checks.

8.            The notice should inform employees of what happens if they fail to cash their checks.

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