Joint motion for approval of PAGA settlement
DEPARTMENT 734 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at DATE \@ "h:mm am/pm" 4:49 PM on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" May 13, 2026. Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 734 by 4:00 p.m. on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" May 15, 2026. Notice to Department 734 should be sent by email to [email protected], with opposing parties copied on the email.
The high volume of telephone calls to Department 734 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email. Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.
This is a PAGA action based upon wage and hour violations. The parties have settled and both parties now move for approval of the PAGA settlement.
The hearing on the joint motion for approval of the PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to July 29, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. The parties are to submit a revised settlement and supporting Declarations, as well as proof of service upon the LWDA, by July 15, 2026.
ANALYSIS
Motion To Approve PAGA Settlement
Discussion
The parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the PAGA claim. The parties jointly bring a motion an order approving settlement of the representative PAGA claim. The State is the real party in interest as to a PAGA claim. (Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale's, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 665, 680.)
Problem: The parties did not submit proof that a copy of the settlement agreement was provided to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), as required by Labor Code § 2699
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
(m) Except as provided in subdivision (n), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 65 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 35 percent to the aggrieved employees. (Lab. Code § 2699(m).)
The terms of the settlement are as follows: The Gross Settlement Amount is $550,000 (Declaration of Jores Kharatian, Exh. 1; Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.1), from which the following payments will be made: (1) Counsel Fees Payment in the amount of not more than 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount, i.e., $183,333.33; (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.1); (2) Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of $33,193.50 (Id.).); (3) a PAGA Representative Service Payment of no more than $10,000 to named Plaintiff (Settlement, ¶ 3.2.4); (4) Administrator Expenses Payment of no more than $8,000 (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.2); (5) PAGA Penalties in the amount of $315,473.17, with 75% ($236,604.88) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($78,868.29) allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.2.3)
Problem: This settlement was signed in April 15, 2026, so the 65%/35% in the current version of Lab. Code § 2699(m) applies. The parties must revise these percentages to 65%/35% instead of the 75%/25% as they appear throughout the Settlement Agreement. This in turn affects how the Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment in ¶ 3.2.3.1 of the Settlement Agreement. Per the Settlement Agreement there are 975 Aggrieved Employees, defined as “all persons employed by CCU as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee in California at any time during the PAGA Period (Marc 24, 2020 to date of entry of Judgment) who worked a total of 62,675 PAGA Pay Periods. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 1.4; ¶ 1.20; ¶ 4.1.)
Problem: Plaintiff has not presented an analysis of how counsel valued the PAGA claims in this litigation. The record presented to the court must allow “an understanding of the amount that is in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes of the litigation,” given the strength of claims and the risks and expense of litigating them. (Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 399, 410-11.) Plaintiff’s counsel has not explained the estimated maximum exposure for civil penalties, calculation of estimated reduction on the amount of potential total liability, such that the Court can finds that, the settlement amount is fair and reasonable, given the risks and expenses of further litigation.
Problem: The named Plaintiff seeks a $10,000 Service Award, but has not provided a supporting declaration to justify this amount. Counsel estimates that Plaintiff contributed 30 hours of time to assisting counsel in this matter. (Kharatian Decl., ¶ 18.) This works out to about a $333.33 hourly rate for Plaintiff and less than four works days’ worth of work. The Court is inclined to reduce this amount of $5,000 absent justification in the form of a Declaration submitted by the named Plaintiff. Nevertheless, named plaintiffs, as opposed to designated class members who are not named plaintiffs, are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.
The district court must evaluate their awards individually, using "relevant factors includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, . . . the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . and reasonabl[e] fear[s of] workplace retaliation." Cook, 142 F.3d at 1016. (Staton v. Boeing Co. (9th Cir. 2003) 327 F.3d 938, 977.)
The hearing on the motion for approval of the PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to July 29, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. The parties are to submit a revised settlement and supporting Declarations, as well as proof of service upon the LWDA, by July 15, 2026.
Case Number: 24STCV11562
Hearing Date: May 18, 2026
Dept: 734
The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at DATE \@ "h:mm am/pm" 4:45 PM on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" May 13, 2026. Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 734 by 4:00 p.m. on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" May 15, 2026. Notice to Department 734 should be sent by email to [email protected], with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to Department 734 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to