NOELLE SALMAS VS. LANDRY'S PAYROLL, INC., ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, July 24, 2025, Line 6 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. PLAINTIFF NOELLE SALMAS, IN HER REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND FELLOW AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES' Motion To Dismiss Entire Action.

Plaintiff Noelle Salmas moves to dismiss this action with prejudice as to her individual claims and without prejudice as to her representative PAGA claims. The motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated herein.

Plaintiff brought this case as a PAGA action alleging violations of Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. She has reached a settlement of her individual claims with the defendants; her counsel's declaration states that "[t]he parties settled the case on an individual basis and did not allocate any of the settlement amount to settle the potential claims of other similarly situated employees." (Razma Dec., 6/30/25, para. 7.)

Labor Code 2699, subdivision (s)(2), provides that "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." This case is a civil action filed pursuant to PAGA and therefore any settlement of it must be approved by the court and submitted to LWDA. The latter has not occurred, although the supplemental declaration filed by Plaintiff on July 16 indicates that Plaintiff has notified the agency of the abandonment of her representative claims.

As to the former, the court fully understands that there is no release of representative PAGA claims and the dismissal as to those claims is without prejudice. The plain language of the statute nonetheless applies: because this case is a "civil action filed pursuant to" PAGA, the court must "review and approve any settlement." There is no carveout in the statutory language where representative claims were dismissed without prejudice; what triggers application of the review provision is that the case was filed as a PAGA representative claim.

Plaintiff's counsel's supplemental declaration, filed on July 16, 2025, gives no additional information that bears on whether the settlement is fair and reasonable to similarly situated employees. A trial court is required under section 2699(s)(2) to "scrutinize whether, in resolving the action, a PAGA plaintiff has adequately represented the state's interests, and hence the public interest." (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 89 [disapproved in part on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, 684].)

A PAGA plaintiff asserting representative claims acts on behalf of the State, and that brings with it significant leverage. A settlement that abandons representative claims in favor of individual recovery without a substantial reason is not fair and reasonable. The court denies the motion without prejudice to a subsequent motion for settlement approval.

The supplemental declaration offers to file the settlement agreement under seal. Records may only be permanently sealed pursuant to court order. The court does not prejudge whether a motion to permanently seal a settlement agreement that has been conditionally lodged under seal should be granted; the motion is not before the court. But the court cautions the parties that the requirements for permanent sealing under Rule of Court 2.550 are demanding and they should be prepared to supply facts rather than conclusory declarations in support of sealing [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. =(301/CVA) |