Plaintiff Lupe Vasquez moves this Court for an Order Approving $65,000 in Penalties as Part of a Settlement Pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (Labor Code Section 2699 (1). Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that Defendant Copart, Inc. (“Defendant”) had a company policy of paying its employees on the eighth day after the end of a pay period, rather than by the seventh day after the end of a pay period as required by Labor Code Section 204. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on October 30th, 2013, and the parties agreed to an early mediation before litigating whether the matter was subject to an arbitration agreement. The settlement sum of $65,000 is broken down as follows: (1) $10,000 to the Settlement Administrator; (2) $41,250 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”); and (3) $$13,750 to the Aggrieved Employees. As noted in the moving papers, the settlement was reached with the assistance and guidance of Mediator Michael Loeb.

In his moving papers, Plaintiff maintains that the settlement amount is fair and reasonable as there were both procedural and substantive defenses raised by Defendant in response to the claims made by Plaintiff. In particular, Plaintiff points to the fact that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and in light of the fact that there was a pending petition for certiorari in front of the United States Supreme Court in the Iskanian case, it was uncertain whether Plaintiff’s PAGA claim would ever even proceed to trial. Plaintiff attaches a copy of the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 2 to the moving papers.

Conspicuously absent from the moving papers, however, is any information about the number of potential “Aggrieved Employees,” and how the net settlement payout will impact them in connection to the claims asserted in the Complaint. In order to assess the fairness of the settlement to the group of “Aggrieved Employees,” the Court needs information regarding the size of the group and the amount of payoff to each such employee. Without additional information, the Court cannot and will not rubber stamp a settlement based solely on a settlement figure with no meaningful data to evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement. Plaintiff is invited to submit additional briefing on this issue so that the Court can make a full and fair assessment of the PAGA Settlement. This matter will be continued to Feb. 27, 2015 at 9 a.m. to allow further briefing. Plaintiff is advised that any additional briefing must be submitted no later than Feb. 20, 2015.