On October 30, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Garner, Tommy,
and
Angel View, Inc.,
Does 1-20,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V' \r
mo'
Su
n
'
a
ctto
egra
olution
.
Wsettlementisf '
9W
9, 10. Garner v. Angel View, Inc. D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ClVDS-1 935378 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
CIVSB-2110984
NOV 1 8 2021
Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
BY
J A LES, UTY
Tentative Ruling:
Grant, subject to resolution of the issues addressed below:
The motion states that there are “approximately" 1,010 aggrieved employees. As
this is a motion for approval (not preliminary approval as in a class action settlement),
counsel must advise the court of the exact number of aggrieved employees. Counsel
should also advise the court of the total number of pay-periods during the PAGA period
for all aggrieved employees collectively. (The exposure analysis uses 29,000 pay
periods; counsel should confirm whether this is correct.)
The request for $20,000 in “incentive” fees isexcessive. Many courts do not
award incentive fees at all in PAGA only cases because the named representative isa
substitute for the State. This court, however, considers incentive fees to be appropriate,
but not in the amount sought. The court will award $5,000 to each named
representative.
The court denies the request forjudicial notice (Exb. A, B, and C) on relevance
grounds. There is also no statutory basis forjudicial notice of Exhibit C. The issue
does not affect the outcome of the motion.
The court has questions about the costs set forth in the Suh Declaration, Exb. B:
Counsel should explain the nature of the First Legal charge for $2,290.74. Copies at
$0.10 per page is excessive. The court will award costs for copies at $0.06 per page.
The charges for “printing” should be reduced accordingly. Counsel should recalculate
the costs for copying and printing. Counsel should confirm that the mileage charges for
court appearances were “in person” appearances, not via CourtCall.
Suh has not provided a Iodestar analysis. Nevertheless, the requested fee is
appropriate under the common fund doctrine and based on Campbell’s analysis.
Page 3 of 5
CVSZ6111821
Document Filed Date
November 18, 2021
Case Filing Date
October 30, 2020
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V' \r mo' Su n ' a ctto egra olution . Wsettlementisf ' 9W 9, 10. Garner v. Angel View, Inc. D SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ClVDS-1 935378 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO CIVSB-2110984 NOV 1 8 2021 Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement BY J A LES, UTY Tentative Ruling: Grant, subject to resolution of the issues addressed below: The motion states that there are “approximately" 1,010 aggrieved employees. As this is a motion for approval (not preliminary approval as in a class action settlement), counsel must advise the court of the exact number of aggrieved employees. Counsel should also advise the court of the total number of pay-periods during the PAGA period for all aggrieved employees collectively. (The exposure analysis uses 29,000 pay periods; counsel should confirm whether this is correct.) The request for $20,000 in “incentive” fees isexcessive. Many courts do not award incentive fees at all in PAGA only cases because the named representative isa substitute for the State. This court, however, considers incentive fees to be appropriate, but not in the amount sought. The court will award $5,000 to each named representative. The court denies the request forjudicial notice (Exb. A, B, and C) on relevance grounds. There is also no statutory basis forjudicial notice of Exhibit C. The issue does not affect the outcome of the motion. The court has questions about the costs set forth in the Suh Declaration, Exb. B: Counsel should explain the nature of the First Legal charge for $2,290.74. Copies at $0.10 per page is excessive. The court will award costs for copies at $0.06 per page. The charges for “printing” should be reduced accordingly. Counsel should recalculate the costs for copying and printing. Counsel should confirm that the mileage charges for court appearances were “in person” appearances, not via CourtCall. Suh has not provided a Iodestar analysis. Nevertheless, the requested fee is appropriate under the common fund doctrine and based on Campbell’s analysis. Page 3 of 5 CVSZ6111821