AKBARPOUR vs BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION, LLC

A person asserting a claim on behalf of the LWDA under PAGA must obtain court approval for any settlement. Labor Code 2699(l)(2) states: “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” 24CV066409: AKBARPOUR vs BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of Representative Action Settlement; filed by FARZAD AKBARPOUR (Plaintiff) CRS# 721172835397 in Department 20 Regarding the standard for review, Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549, states “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” In O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1133, the LWDA filed a brief that stated, “It is thus important that when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief provided for under the PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute to benefit the public.”

Regarding the evidence required for the court to evaluate a settlement under Labor Code 2699(l)(2), the court is not required to undertake a comprehensive “what would have happened if the litigation had proceeded” analysis. The standard of review is similar to the standard for review of class action settlements under Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, and the standard for approval of good faith settlements under CCP 877.6 and Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.

The court can consider the value of any effective injunctive relief that a PAGA plaintiff obtains through settlement even though Labor Code 2699(a) permits a PAGA plaintiff to recover only penalties on behalf of the LWDA. The primary purpose of LWDA law enforcement proceedings is to ensure compliance with the law and not to impose and collect penalties. In enacting PAGA, “The Legislature declared that adequate financing of labor law enforcement was necessary to achieve maximum compliance with state labor laws.” (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980.)

The analysis of whether a proposed settlement will be “fair to those affected” concerns only fairness to the LWDA. If a PAGA plaintiff settles a claim on behalf of the LWDA for less than the maximum settlement value, the only injured person is the LDWA. The statute requires notice of a settlement to the LWDA so it can protect its interests and in addition, it requires court approval. (Labor Code § 2699(l).) The aggrieved employees retain whatever private claims they had before the settlement.

SETTLEMENT TERMS

The “Aggrieved Employees” in this action are defined as all current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Defendant in California from December 19, 2022 through November 30, 2025. (Settlement ¶¶ 1.4, 1.20.) There are approximately 127 Aggrieved Employees. (Chang Decl. ¶ 8.)

The gross settlement amount is $190,000. (Settlement ¶¶ 1.11, 3.1.) The Settlement requests $62,700, or 33%, in attorneys’ fees and expenses of not more than $20,000. (Settlement ¶ 3.2.1.) The Settlement further requests an administrator expenses payment not to exceed $3,750. (Settlement ¶ 3.2.2.)

The Settlement provides for 75% of the PAGA payment to the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25% to the Aggrieved Employees (Settlement ¶ 3.2.3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV066409: AKBARPOUR vs BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of Representative Action Settlement; filed by FARZAD AKBARPOUR (Plaintiff) CRS# 721172835397 in Department 20 Each individual PAGA payment will be calculated by the administrator by (1) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA penalties by the total number of PAGA pay periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA period, and (2) multiplying the result by the count of each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA pay periods. (Settlement ¶ 3.2.4.1.) \

SCOPE OF THE RELEASE

The Settlement provides that Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees will release claims that were or reasonably could have been alleged in this action and/or in the PAGA Notice. (Settlement ¶¶ 1.25, 1.26, 5.1.) The released PAGA claims is defined as those claims released by both Plaintiff and PAGA counsel. (Settlement ¶ 1.25.) The Settlement, therefore, releases claims for both civil penalties under Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. and 2699, and for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under Labor Code section 2699(g).

DISPOSITION OF THE RESIDUAL

The disposition of any uncashed checks shall be paid to Legal Aid at Work. (Settlement ¶ 4.4.3.)

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Settlement requests attorneys’ fees of 33% of the Gross Settlement amount, or $62,700. The Ninth Circuit’s benchmark is 25%. (Lafitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495.) When using the percentage of the recovery approach, this Court’s benchmark for fees is 30% of the total fund. (see Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc., supra, 1 Cal.5th at 495; see also Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175 in fee award involving minor, 10% too low and 31% in contract “not out of line”; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 fn 13 (citing awards of 25% and one-third); Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn 11 (30.3% or 27.9 % “not out of line and citing study that “ fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.”).) The 30% percentage approach suggests fees of $34,500.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that its lodestar is approximately $92,394 for about 167.2 hours of work, at hourly rates ranging from $450 - $1,100 per hour for five attorneys, $200 per hour for paralegals, and $95 for legal assistants. (Bibiyan Decl. ¶ 19.) Counsel states that Plaintiff’s work in litigation this action through settlement includes investigation, discovery, defense of a motion to compel arbitration, and participation in mediation. (Bibiyan Decl. ¶ 21.) Counsel further provides information regarding its qualifications, experience, the nature of the work performed, and its rates. (Bibiyan Decl. ¶¶ 19-23.) Counsel represented Plaintiff in this action on a contingency basis. (Bibiyan Decl. ¶ 23.) Counsel’s rates and hours appear to be reasonable.

On this basis, as well as the facts provided for in Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, the Court APPROVES attorneys’ fees of $62,700. This reflects adequate compensation for the risks

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV066409: AKBARPOUR vs BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of Representative Action Settlement; filed by FARZAD AKBARPOUR (Plaintiff) CRS# 721172835397 in Department 20 undertaken and appropriate in circumstances reflecting in the efficient resolution of an action where less litigation was required. (See Lealao v. Beneficial Cal. Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.)

COSTS OF LITIGATION

The Court APPROVES costs not to exceed $20,000.

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION COSTS

The Court APPROVES settlement administration costs not to exceed $3,750.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to approve representative action settlement is GRANTED. The Court will execute the proposed judgment submitted on July 23, 2026.

A compliance hearing is SET for February 17, 2027 at 3:00 PM in Department 20, at which time the Court will consider evidence that the distribution process is complete and that a final accounting may be approved.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV066409: AKBARPOUR vs BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of Representative Action Settlement; filed by FARZAD AKBARPOUR (Plaintiff) CRS# 721172835397 in Department 20 BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.