Case Number: BC653817 Hearing Date: May 15, 2019 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

maria quintanilla,

Plaintiff,

vs.

southwest wine & spirits, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 653817

Hearing Date:

May 15, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION 2699 ET SEQ.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Maria Quintanilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this action individually and on behalf of the California Labor Commissioner as the California Private Attorney General, on July 28, 2017 against Defendant Southwest Wine & Spirits, LLC (“Defendant”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Labor Code for failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements and maintain records, failure to provide rest breaks, and failure to pay timely wages upon termination, as well as causes of action for violations of FEHA and wrongful termination. Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action was for violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, §§ 2698, et seq.).

After conducting discovery related to Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims, Plaintiff determined that Defendant maintained a compliant wage and hour written policy applicable to Plaintiff’s claims. (Jackson Decl., ¶ 3.) Given the written policy, Plaintiff decided to settle her individual PAGA claim in the amount of $250. Plaintiff has not resolved any claims for any other purported aggrieved employees. (Jackson Decl., ¶ 3.) The settlement allocates $187.50 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and $62.50 to Plaintiff. (Jackson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

Plaintiff now moves for approval of the settlement. The motion is unopposed.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

Discussion

A superior court must “review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.” (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).)

There is no statutory or common law standard for approval of a PAGA settlement, therefore, the Court finds that the standards used for approval of class action settlements to be instructive. “[A] presumption of fairness exists 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.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) The last factor, small percentage of objectors, is inapplicable to PAGA claims. (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 984-985 [rejecting the argument that representative actions under PAGA violate the due process rights of “nonparty aggrieved employees who are not given notice of, and an opportunity to be heard”].)

The Court is satisfied that the parties reached the settlement through arm’s-length bargaining. The parties engaged in sufficient discovery to allow counsel to decide to settle the PAGA claim. Plaintiff’s counsel appears to be competent and experienced, although no direct testimony is provided by Plaintiff’s counsel regarding his own competence and experience and no evidence is provided that Defendant was represented by competent and experienced counsel. The Court finds that the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

“The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the [Labor and Workforce Development Agency] at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).) The Court finds that notice of the settlement has been provided to the LWDA. (Jackson Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)

“[C]ivil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws, including the administration of this part, and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.” (Lab. Code, § 2699(i).)

The settlement agreement provides that, of the $250 settlement, 75% will be provided to the LWDA. (Jackson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A, § 6.)

Additional factors that are useful to consider include the strength of a plaintiff’s case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed, and the experience and views of counsel. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128.)

In terms of the risks of litigation and strength of the case, Plaintiff contends that Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s standing as an aggrieved employee and would have argued in favor of lowering any civil penalties in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Plaintiff also argues that in light of Defendant’s compliant written wage and hour policy, the risk of Defendant prevailing on the PAGA claim was high. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation militate in favor of a finding that the settlement is reasonable.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days of this Order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: May 15, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court