Case Number: BC609787 Hearing Date: May 22, 2018 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

XUAN LAI MA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC609787

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND ENHANCEMENTS

8:30 a.m.

May 22, 2018

Dept. 56

The parties have agreed to settle this action for $375,000. This amount is to be allocated as follows: (1) $150,000 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, (2) $18,509 for Plaintiffs’ costs, (3) $37,500 in enhancement payments to Plaintiffs, (4) $12,000 for estimated administration costs, (5) $20,000 for payment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and (6) $136,991 in civil penalties distributed to aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis. Plaintiffs now seeks approval of the parties’ settlement.

The PAGA is “a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The statute provides a mechanism for private enforcement of Labor Code violations for the public benefit. (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; Ochoa-Hernandez v. Cjaders Foods, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1340777, at p. *4.) To incentivize employees to bring PAGA actions, the statute provides aggrieved employees 25 percent of the recovered civil penalties. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i).) The remaining 75 percent is distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency[1] “for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under [the Labor Code].” (Ibid.)

In reviewing the terms of a settlement agreement, the court determines whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all concerned, and not the product of fraud, collusion, or overreaching. (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337; Nordstrom Commission Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.) In the context of a class action settlement, the court considers various factors including whether (1) the settlement is the result of 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. (Nordstrom, at p. 581; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.) In considering the amount of settlement, the court is mindful that compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process. (Wershba, at p. 250.)[2]

After review and consideration of the papers, oral presentation and arguments of the parties, such other and further evidence submitted for consideration, and the remaining papers and pleadings currently on file in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to approve the settlement as fair, just and equitable. The Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 22nd day of May 2018

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Although it appears that 75% of the subject civil penalties are not allocated to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, civil penalties for underpaid wages pursuant to Lab. Code § 558 (as in here) go directly to employees.

[2]The general principles applicable to class action settlements apply equally in the PAGA context.