Donna Lee Simmons v. Lifehouse, Inc.

Plaintiff has filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.

Background

Plaintiff’s PAGA Letter with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and initial complaint were filed in September 2024 for unpaid overtime, meal period violations, rest period violations, noncompliant wage statements, waiting time violations, and unfair/unlawful business practices. On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add the PAGA claim.

The parties conducted formal discovery, which included form interrogatories, special interrogatory and requests for production. Defendant provided Plaintiff with inspection of payroll, wage and hour policies and practices and other documents. After an analysis of this data, the parties attended mediation with mediator Lynn Frank. After one full day of mediation, the parties agreed to resolve this matter for $1,100,000. The parties thereafter entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA settlement.

Standard

In reviewing class action settlements, the court must determine whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate” considering the strength of plaintiffs’ case, as well as the risk and expense of further litigation, the ability to maintain class action status through trial, the extent of discovery completed, and the experience of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.

(1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1794, 1801.) This standard also applies to review of settlements of PAGA claims. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 64.) In this case, the evidence presented demonstrates the class should be provisionally certified. The class is defined as “All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked for Defendant in California at any time between September 26, 2020 and November 5, 2020. There are approximately 848 class member and 710 employees within the PAGA time period. The Court finds that this proposed class is ascertainable and sufficiently numerous. It also meets the commonality requirement, as common issues of law and fact appear to dominate regarding overtime, meal breaks, and related claims. The claims appear to be typical of the class, and Plaintiff and counsel appear to adequately represent the class.

As to the settlement, it appears to be fair. It was reached as part of arms-length negotiations after significant discovery. The total amount of settlement is $1.1 million dollars and the net settlement amount is estimated to be approximately $619,0000 to be distributed to participating class members based on the number of workweeks a class member worked during the class period. Additionally, PAGA members will receive a pro-rata share of the 35% portion of the PAGA payment allocated for the affected employees. The court shall review any attorney’s fees and enhancement request at a final approval hearing. The parties shall appear to schedule a final approval hearing and related deadlines.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov