Hijazi v. Forward Sunset et al.

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.

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.