Mendez v. Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo Corporation

(37) Tentative Ruling

Re: Mendez v. Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo Corporation Case No. 23CECG04628

Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling:

To grant as to the approval of the settlement, costs, and settlement administration. (Lab. Code, §§ 2698 et seq.) To approve attorney’s fees in the reduced amount of $40,606.25. To approve an incentive award to plaintiff Javier Mendez in the reduced amount of $3,000. Plaintiff is directed to file a revised proposed judgment within five days of the service of the minute order by the clerk.

Explanation:

1.

Introduction

Under Labor Code section 2699, “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to [PAGA]. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) The statute does not explain what exactly the trial court should consider when reviewing a proposed PAGA settlement. However, in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, the Court of Appeal did provide some guidance.

The court explained that “many federal district courts have applied the ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate’ standard from class action cases to evaluate PAGA settlements.” (Id. at pp. 75–76, disapproved on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) “Given PAGA's purpose to protect the public interest, we also agree with the LWDA and federal district courts that have found it appropriate to review a PAGA settlement to ascertain whether a settlement is fair in view of PAGA's purposes and policies.

We therefore hold that a trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Id. at p. 77, internal citations and footnote omitted.) On the other hand, “PAGA does not provide that aggrieved employees must be heard on the approval of PAGA settlements... PAGA provides no mechanism for aggrieved employees, including those pursuing PAGA lawsuits, to be heard in objection to another PAGA settlement.

This concession is dispositive, and we will not read a requirement into a statute that does not appear therein.” (Id. at p. 79, internal citation omitted.)

2. Notice to LWDA Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(2), states: “The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” Plaintiff’s 13

counsel has shown that notice of the settlement was provided to the LWDA. (Moon Decl., Exhs. 2-3.)

3. Is the Settlement Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable? As mentioned above, the Court of Appeal in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th 56 stated that the trial court should review PAGA settlements to determine whether they are fair, adequate and reasonable. (Moniz, supra, at pp. 75-77.) “Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement's fairness—including the strength of the plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount—these factors can be useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement.” (Id. at p. 77.)

“Given PAGA's purpose to protect the public interest, we also agree with the LWDA and federal district courts that have found it appropriate to review a PAGA settlement to ascertain whether a settlement is fair in view of PAGA's purposes and policies. We therefore hold that a trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Ibid, internal citations and footnote omitted.)

a. Strength of the Case

The operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, alleges a sole cause of action for penalties pursuant to PAGA, based on various Labor Code violations. Plaintiff argues the settlement is reasonable and will redress the alleged civil code violations experienced by the PAGA members. (Moon Decl., ¶ 22.) Defendant provided time and payroll data representing an 18% sample of the PAGA members which was in turn analyzed by plaintiff’s counsel who determined the realistic exposure for defendant was $320,000. (Moon Decl., ¶ 32.) Defendant has provided a declaration confirming there are 506 aggrieved employees and 17,564 PAGA pay periods. (Gonzales-Warkentin, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff relied upon a statistical expert in analyzing payroll data from defendant. (Moon Decl., ¶ 12.)

Regarding weaknesses of the claims, plaintiff notes the court’s discretion to reduce the civil penalties and defendant’s defenses. Plaintiff’s counsel details his assessment of the merits and risks of each violation alleged based upon his experience prosecuting such claims. (Moon Decl., ¶¶ 25-41.)

The court finds there is sufficient evidence to support the figures presented in the moving papers and to find that the settlement figure is reasonable.

b. Stage of the Proceeding

A presumption of fairness exists where the settlement is reached through arm’s length mediation between adversarial parties, where there has been investigation and discovery sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, and where counsel is experienced in similar litigation. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal. App 4th

1794, 1802.) Here, the case settled after the parties attended mediation. Plaintiff’s counsel are highly experienced in representative litigation.

Plaintiff attests to the settlement as a product of arm’s-length negotiations facilitated by mediator Tripper Ortman. (Moon Decl. ¶ 13.) The mediation on February 18, 2025 resulted in the settlement now before the court. (Ibid.) Regarding pre-settlement discovery, counsel states that defendant provided an 18% sample of time and payroll records for PAGA members and that these records were analyzed by counsel and a statistical expert for use in settlement negotiations. (Moon Decl., ¶ 12.)

This factor weighs in favor of approval.

c. Risks of Litigating Case through Trial

Counsel notes that the parties both recognized the cost, time, inconvenience, and delay in the continued litigation of the PAGA claim.

d. Amount of Settlement

The gross settlement is $285,000, and to assess the reasonableness of this amount, the court needs a good valuation of the total potential penalties. Foundation for the number of employees and pay periods has been provided. (Gonzales-Warkentin Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff relied upon a statistical expert in analyzing payroll data from defendant. (Moon Decl., ¶ 12.) Counsel asserts that the settlement amount is about 89% of the realistic recovery. (Id. at ¶ 32.) This is a reasonable settlement amount.

e. Experience and Views of Counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel are highly experienced in class and representative litigation. They have stated that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approval.

f. Government Participation

No government entity participated in the case, so this factor does not favor either approval or disapproval of the settlement.

g. Scope of the release

... PAGA's statutory scheme and the principles of preclusion allow, or “authorize,” a PAGA plaintiff to bind the state to a judgment through litigation that could extinguish PAGA claims that were not specifically listed in the PAGA notice where those claims involve the same primary right litigated. Because a PAGA plaintiff is authorized to settle a PAGA representative action with court approval (§ 2699, (l)(2)), it logically follows that he or she is authorized to bind the state to a settlement releasing claims commensurate with those that would be barred by res judicata in a subsequent suit had the settling suit been litigated to judgment by the state.

(Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 83.)

Here, the settlement agreement provides that the following claims would be released:

“...all claims, transactions, or occurrences related to their employment including all claims alleged in the Action, including, but not limited to: (a) all claims that were, or reasonably could have been, alleged, based on the facts contained in the Complaint and the PAGA Notice, including but not limited to claims for meal and rest period penalties, Labor Code section 203 (waiting time penalties) and Labor Code section 226 (wage statements).”

(Moon Decl., Exh. 1, PAGA Settlement Agreement, Section 5.)

This is consistent with the Notice sent by plaintiff. (Moon Decl., Exh. 2.) The scope of the release appears to be appropriately limited to the PAGA claims of which the LWDA was given notice and those supported by the allegations of the complaint.

4. Attorney’s Fees and Costs Plaintiffs’ attorneys seek an award of $85,500 in attorneys’ fees (30% of the gross settlement), and up to $25,000 in costs. Courts have approved awards of fees in class actions that are based on a percentage of the total common fund recovery. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) It appears that the same reasoning would apply to PAGA settlements, which bear similarities to class actions. However, the court may also perform a lodestar calculation to double check the reasonableness of the fee request. (Id. at pp. 504-506.)

A court assessing attorney’s fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case." (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.) As our Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, the lodestar consists of "the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. ..." (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095, italics added; Ketchum v.

Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) Counsel have agreed to reduce their billing rates to $500 per hour for Moon and $450 per hour for Park. The court does find these rates more reasonable. With these rates, the lodestar is $32,485. After reducing the hourly rates to better match local counsel rates the lodestar is less than the fees requested. A multiplier of 2.63 is necessary to meet the requested fees of $85,500. In the context of using the lodestar method to cross-check attorney fees in a class action settlement, a multiplier can be used to increase or decrease the award “to take into account a variety of other factors, including the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented.” (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc., supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 489, internal citation omitted.)

Counsel’s declaration states that the case was taken on a contingent fee basis and requests the court take into consideration “enhancement” factors to adjust the lodestar figure. (Moon Decl., ¶ 62.) Those factors here include the risks presented by the contingent nature of the action, difficulty of the questions involved, skill presented in negotiating and reaching a settlement in light of defendant’s vigorous opposition, the work on this case precluding the ability to take another case, and the meaningful results obtained for the aggrieved employees and State of California. (Ibid.)

The factors described are generally true of any plaintiff-side wage and hour litigation and does not speak to anything unique about this action. The court would be inclined to apply a multiplier of 1.25. Thus, the court would be inclined to award attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,606.25. The remaining $44,893.75 set aside can be added to the common fund for the benefit of all aggrieved employees. The court’s approval of the actual costs of $24,250.86 is requested. Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Mr.

Moon is an expense ledger of costs for this action. These costs are supported and are approved.

5. Administration Costs The settlement agreement provides that settlement administrator Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions will receive $5,750 to cover administration costs. The court intends to approve the settlement administration costs to Phoenix.

6. Incentive Award to Named Plaintiffs The settlement also provides that the plaintiff will receive an incentive award of $10,000. The court is inclined to award $3,000 as a more reasonable amount, commensurate with the evidence of risk and time expended by plaintiff. The remaining $7,000 set aside can be added to the common fund for the benefit of all aggrieved employees. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on September 9, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

17