Judge: Yvette M. Palazuelos, Case: 20STCV44298, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44298    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 9

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Hon. Elaine Lu

Ana Hernandez de Bahena vs Le Pafe, Inc.

Case No.: 20STCV44298

Hearing: April 9, 2024

All parties in this action were notified on March 21, 2024 via Case Anywhere that effective April 2, 2024, and until further notice, Judge Elaine Lu will be temporarily assigned to Department 9 at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Spring Street Courthouse. 

On April 4, 2024, the Court again notified all parties in this action by way of Case Anywhere that until further notice, Judge Elaine Lu has been assigned to Department 9, including the instant action.  The Court required all parties to respond either (a) by indicating acceptance of Judge Elaine Lu to preside over this action during her temporary assignment to Department 9, or (b) by filing a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 (if one was still available to that party).

Having been so advised, all parties in this action have indicated via Case Anywhere that they accept the assignment of Judge Elaine Lu to preside over the case during her temporary assignment to Department 9.

As the parties have indicated their acceptance of the judicial assignment, the Court hereby posts the following tentative ruling for the April 9, 2024 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for final approval:

TENTATIVE RULING

Counsel must address the following before the Court can grant final approval:

·       Counsel should provide an updated declaration from the named Plaintiff. In connection with the final fairness hearing, named Plaintiffs must submit declarations attesting to why they should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount.  The named Plaintiffs must explain why they “should be compensated for the expense or risk he has incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.”  (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 806.)  Trial courts should not sanction enhancement awards of thousands of dollars with “nothing more than pro forma claims as to ‘countless’ hours expended, ‘potential stigma’ and ‘potential risk.’ Significantly more specificity, in the form of quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs, is required in order for the trial court to conclude that an enhancement was ‘necessary to induce [the named plaintiff] to participate in the suit . . . .’”  (Id. at 806-807, italics and ellipsis in original.) Plaintiff De Bahena’s declaration in support of preliminary approval does not provide any information or evidence of services provided by Plaintiff. Counsel’s moving papers cite work performed by the Plaintiff and estimated 40 hours of time spent on the case.  (See Moon Decl., ISO Final, ¶31.).  However this information should be provided in the form of a detailed declaration by Plaintiff herself.

• Counsel should explain why there are almost 200 fewer Aggrieved Employees than anticipated.  At preliminary approval Counsel estimated that there would be 293 PAGA Aggrieved Employees. (Gunther Decl. ISO Prelim, ¶4.) At final approval, the administrator declares that there are 95 Aggrieved Employees. (Polites Decl., ¶19.)

• Regarding costs, Counsel should clarify what is meant by “Admin Fee” for $750. (Moon Decl. ISO Final, Exhibit 4, p. 3.)

Upon Counsel curing the above defects, the Court is inclined to grant final approval. 

If before 11 am on April 8, 2024 Plaintiff’s counsel files and serves supplemental evidence correcting the defects above, the Court will review the supplemental materials before the April 9, 2024 hearing.  Otherwise, Plaintiff’s Counsel may indicate via Case Anywhere how much time Counsel needs to file the supplemental evidence, and the Court will continue the hearing accordingly.