Preview
F l L E
SUPERIOR COURT OFQALIFORMA
c
§§fi££§££fi~§3€éfifi饰
7. Martinez v. City of Hope
CIVD82015729 DEC 0’5 2022
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Tentative Ruling: BY
J
LES, Puw
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 isfair, adequate and
reasonable." (Kullar v. FootLocker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.Appi.’4th 116, 126; Reed
v. United Teachers Los Angeles (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 may consider inCIude "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'settle'ment, the
extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and
views of counsel, the presence of a governmental 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 shOuId be tailored to
"
each case. (Ibid.) The court may “engage'In a balancing and weighing of factors
depending on the circumstances of each case. " (Wefshba v. Apple Computer, Inc
(2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 245, overruled on other grounds'In Hernandez v.
Restoration Hardware (201 8) 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
"
wi|| 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. (Ibid. 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. " (Kullar,
supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)
PA GA 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
Page 2 of 10
CV526120522
and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz
violations, deter future ones,
v. Adecco USA, (2021) 72
Inc. 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
There are several objectors to this settlement. The papers submitted do not
provide a sufficient basis for disapproval of this settlement which, overall, appears to be
fair, reasonable, and adequate. Counsel for the objectors, however, are invited to
address the Issues at the hearing.
Assuming the objections are overruled, the court finds that the class settlement is
fair,reasonable, and adequate. 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 collusmn Class counsel
are well--qualified to represent the class. The representatives area qualified to
represent the class. The settlement was reached through arms--Iength negotiations with
the assistance of an experienced and well- r-espected mediator
Some of the deductions from the-grossysettlement‘amount, however, require
adjustment. The request for a 35% attorney fe'ejs unwarranted. The court will award
33.33%, or $1 ,833,333.33. The motion seeks ,coStS'totaling $51 ,359.05. (Motion
18. 23. ) The court sees only $30, 393. 37 as'd'ocumented'In the Azwazian declaration,
Exhibit B. Counsel should direct the court to any other costs that are documented'In the
motion. Absent evidence of other recoverable Costs, the court will award $30, 393. 37 for
costs. Incentive awards at $15, 000. 00 for each representative are unsupported. The
court will award a $20, 000 for an incentive fee to be divided between the
total of
representatives admlnlstratlon fee ($29, 995. 00) and the PAGA penalties
The
($400 OQO) are appropriate deductions and reasonable'In amount.
These adjustments (assuming counsel documents the full amount of costs) result
in a net Class settlement of $3, 165, 312. 62. With 7, 027 class members (after 9 opt-
outs), each class member will receive on average $450. 45 for the class portion of the
settlement. The administrator testifies that this amount “will be subject
employee to
payroll tax."Counsel should confirm that the employer- s—ide of payroll taxes wi|| be
funded separately from the gross settlement amount by defendants. Counsel should
also advise the court of the aggregate number of work-weeks for the class settlement.
With respect to the PAGA portion of the settlement, the court requires
clarification. The administrator states that there are 6,390 aggrieved employees. This
suggests a very low attrition rate. Counsel should confirm that the number is correct.
Subject to additional information, the court find the PAGA 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
Page 3 of 10
CV526120522
Preview
F l L E SUPERIOR COURT OFQALIFORMA c §§fi££§££fi~§3€éfifi饰 7. Martinez v. City of Hope CIVD82015729 DEC 0’5 2022 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Tentative Ruling: BY J LES, Puw 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 isfair, adequate and reasonable." (Kullar v. FootLocker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.Appi.’4th 116, 126; Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (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 may consider inCIude "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'settle'ment, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental 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 shOuId be tailored to " each case. (Ibid.) The court may “engage'In a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. " (Wefshba v. Apple Computer, Inc (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 245, overruled on other grounds'In Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware (201 8) 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 " wi|| 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. (Ibid. 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. " (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128, quoting Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) PA GA 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 Page 2 of 10 CV526120522 and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz violations, deter future ones, v. Adecco USA, (2021) 72 Inc. 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 There are several objectors to this settlement. The papers submitted do not provide a sufficient basis for disapproval of this settlement which, overall, appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Counsel for the objectors, however, are invited to address the Issues at the hearing. Assuming the objections are overruled, the court finds that the class settlement is fair,reasonable, and adequate. 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 collusmn Class counsel are well--qualified to represent the class. The representatives area qualified to represent the class. The settlement was reached through arms--Iength negotiations with the assistance of an experienced and well- r-espected mediator Some of the deductions from the-grossysettlement‘amount, however, require adjustment. The request for a 35% attorney fe'ejs unwarranted. The court will award 33.33%, or $1 ,833,333.33. The motion seeks ,coStS'totaling $51 ,359.05. (Motion 18. 23. ) The court sees only $30, 393. 37 as'd'ocumented'In the Azwazian declaration, Exhibit B. Counsel should direct the court to any other costs that are documented'In the motion. Absent evidence of other recoverable Costs, the court will award $30, 393. 37 for costs. Incentive awards at $15, 000. 00 for each representative are unsupported. The court will award a $20, 000 for an incentive fee to be divided between the total of representatives admlnlstratlon fee ($29, 995. 00) and the PAGA penalties The ($400 OQO) are appropriate deductions and reasonable'In amount. These adjustments (assuming counsel documents the full amount of costs) result in a net Class settlement of $3, 165, 312. 62. With 7, 027 class members (after 9 opt- outs), each class member will receive on average $450. 45 for the class portion of the settlement. The administrator testifies that this amount “will be subject employee to payroll tax."Counsel should confirm that the employer- s—ide of payroll taxes wi|| be funded separately from the gross settlement amount by defendants. Counsel should also advise the court of the aggregate number of work-weeks for the class settlement. With respect to the PAGA portion of the settlement, the court requires clarification. The administrator states that there are 6,390 aggrieved employees. This suggests a very low attrition rate. Counsel should confirm that the number is correct. Subject to additional information, the court find the PAGA 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 Page 3 of 10 CV526120522