Preview
TENTATIVE RULINGS
F l
SUPERIOR coulfirgr CDAUFORMA
COUNTY 0F SAN
9:00 a.m. Calendar SAN BERNARomaoEgrsq‘fieéNTo
4. Villegas v. Myojo USA et al. MAY 1 5 2023
CIVD82020848
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
W
w NANDE ,DEPUTY
Tentative Ruling:
Granted.
Final Approval of Class Action Settlements
Settlement of a class action requires court approval. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.)
The moving party must demonstrate that “the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.”
(Ku/Iar v. FootLocker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 126; Reed v. United Teachers
Los Ange/es (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337.) The court has “broad discretion in making this
determination.” (In re Microsoft I—V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 723.) Relevant factors
the court mayconsider include “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity
and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial,
the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmentaI participant,
and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.
(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801 .) This list of factors “is not exhaustive and should be
tailored to each case.” (Ibid.) The court may “engage in a balancing and weighing of-factors
depending on the circumstances of each case." (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 224, 245, overruled on other grounds in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 269.)
“Although the court gives regard to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement
between the parties, the court must also evaluate the proposed settlement agreement with the
purpose of protecting the rights of the absent class members who will be bound by the
settlement.” (Wershba. supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1801 .) “The court must therefore scrutinize the proposed settlement agreement to the
extent necessary to “‘reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud
or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement,
taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” (lbid., quoting Officers
for Justice v. Civil Service Com’n (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, 625.)
Nevertheless. the settlement is entitled to “a presumption of fairness where: (1) the
settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are
sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar
litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (KuIIar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p.
128, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)
Page 2 CV526051523
TENTATIVE RU LINGS
Approval PAGA Settlements
To approve a settlement under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, Labor
Code section 2698 et seq.(PAGA), the court must find that the settlement 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.) The court must find that the plaintiff “has adequately
represented the state‘s interests, and hence the public interest.” (Id. at p. 89.) The LWDA
must have been notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to object.
The Proposed Settlement
The court finds that the $295,000.00 settlement for 622 class members (of which 316
share in the PAGA portion reasonable, and adequate. There were no
of the settlement) is fair,
opt-outs and no objections to the settlement. The amount of the settlement is appropriate
given the strength of plaintiff’s case and the risks of litigation. Adequate discovery and
investigation has occurred. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion. Class counsel are well-
qualified to represent the class. The representative is also qualified to represent the class.
The settlement was reached through arms-Iength negotiations with the assistance of an
experienced and weIl-respected mediator, Steven Serretore. The deductions from the gross
settlement amount for attorney fees ($98,235.00)? costs ($12,1 12.71 ), administration fee
($12,750.00),3 incentive award ($5,000.00), and PAGA penalties ($50,000.00) are appropriate
deductions and reasonable in amount, resulting in a net class settlement of $1 16,902.29. The
622 class members will receive, on average, $1 87.95 each for the class portion of the
settlement. Each class member who also worked during the PAGA period will receive an
additional amount for the PAGA settlement, addressed below.
With respect to the PAGA portion of the settlement ($50,000.00), the court finds 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., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.) The court further finds that the plaintiff “has
adequately represented the state's interests, and hence the public interest.” (Id. at p. 89.) The
LWDA was given an opportunity to object and did not do so. The LWDA will receive
$37,500.00 and the 316 aggrieved employees will collectively receive $12,500.00, or, on
average, $39.56 each.
The motion for final approval is therefore granted. The class is certified for this purpose.
The court will schedule a final hearing to confirm final distribution of all funds in approximately
one year. A declaration of the administrator must be submitted in advance of the hearing,
stating that all funds have been distributed. If there are undistributed funds resulting from
2
The attorney fees are reasonable both under the common fund doctrine and under the Iodestar analysis
provided.
3
The administration fee is $12,750.00 (as correctly noted in the chart on p. 6 of the motion and in Mr.
Wheeler’s declaration). The indication at p. 6, line 8, that the fee is $15,000.00 is apparently a typographical
error.
Page 3 CVSZSOS 1523
Preview
TENTATIVE RULINGS F l SUPERIOR coulfirgr CDAUFORMA COUNTY 0F SAN 9:00 a.m. Calendar SAN BERNARomaoEgrsq‘fieéNTo 4. Villegas v. Myojo USA et al. MAY 1 5 2023 CIVD82020848 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement W w NANDE ,DEPUTY Tentative Ruling: Granted. Final Approval of Class Action Settlements Settlement of a class action requires court approval. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.) The moving party must demonstrate that “the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.” (Ku/Iar v. FootLocker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 126; Reed v. United Teachers Los Ange/es (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337.) The court has “broad discretion in making this determination.” (In re Microsoft I—V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 723.) Relevant factors the court mayconsider include “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmentaI participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801 .) This list of factors “is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.” (Ibid.) The court may “engage in a balancing and weighing of-factors depending on the circumstances of each case." (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245, overruled on other grounds in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 269.) “Although the court gives regard to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties, the court must also evaluate the proposed settlement agreement with the purpose of protecting the rights of the absent class members who will be bound by the settlement.” (Wershba. supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1801 .) “The court must therefore scrutinize the proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary to “‘reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” (lbid., quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com’n (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, 625.) Nevertheless. the settlement is entitled to “a presumption of fairness where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (KuIIar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) Page 2 CV526051523 TENTATIVE RU LINGS Approval PAGA Settlements To approve a settlement under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.(PAGA), the court must find that the settlement 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.) The court must find that the plaintiff “has adequately represented the state‘s interests, and hence the public interest.” (Id. at p. 89.) The LWDA must have been notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to object. The Proposed Settlement The court finds that the $295,000.00 settlement for 622 class members (of which 316 share in the PAGA portion reasonable, and adequate. There were no of the settlement) is fair, opt-outs and no objections to the settlement. The amount of the settlement is appropriate given the strength of plaintiff’s case and the risks of litigation. Adequate discovery and investigation has occurred. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion. Class counsel are well- qualified to represent the class. The representative is also qualified to represent the class. The settlement was reached through arms-Iength negotiations with the assistance of an experienced and weIl-respected mediator, Steven Serretore. The deductions from the gross settlement amount for attorney fees ($98,235.00)? costs ($12,1 12.71 ), administration fee ($12,750.00),3 incentive award ($5,000.00), and PAGA penalties ($50,000.00) are appropriate deductions and reasonable in amount, resulting in a net class settlement of $1 16,902.29. The 622 class members will receive, on average, $1 87.95 each for the class portion of the settlement. Each class member who also worked during the PAGA period will receive an additional amount for the PAGA settlement, addressed below. With respect to the PAGA portion of the settlement ($50,000.00), the court finds 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., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.) The court further finds that the plaintiff “has adequately represented the state's interests, and hence the public interest.” (Id. at p. 89.) The LWDA was given an opportunity to object and did not do so. The LWDA will receive $37,500.00 and the 316 aggrieved employees will collectively receive $12,500.00, or, on average, $39.56 each. The motion for final approval is therefore granted. The class is certified for this purpose. The court will schedule a final hearing to confirm final distribution of all funds in approximately one year. A declaration of the administrator must be submitted in advance of the hearing, stating that all funds have been distributed. If there are undistributed funds resulting from 2 The attorney fees are reasonable both under the common fund doctrine and under the Iodestar analysis provided. 3 The administration fee is $12,750.00 (as correctly noted in the chart on p. 6 of the motion and in Mr. Wheeler’s declaration). The indication at p. 6, line 8, that the fee is $15,000.00 is apparently a typographical error. Page 3 CVSZSOS 1523