Logue vs. JHA Remediation LLC

CONTINUED to August 27, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 in order to give Plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity to address the issues identified below.

This is a PAGA-only action.

On 5/21/2024, Plaintiff Corey Logue filed a PAGA complaint against Defendants JHA Remediation LLC and JHA Environmental, Inc., seeking PAGA penalties for Defendants’ alleged (1) failure to provide meal breaks; (2) illegal rounding of time worked; (3) failure to pay proper rates for overtime work; (4) were not paid all wages due upon separation from employment; and (5) were not provided accurate wage statements. (ROA #2.) On 5/29/2026, Defendants answered. (ROA #8.)

On 5/29/2026, Defendants filed a notice of related case regarding Logue v. JHA Remediation LLC, OCSC Case No. 2024-01384205. In that case, the same Plaintiff filed a complaint against the same Defendants on 3/5/2024, alleging 13 causes of action for various Labor Code violations, plus claims of discrimination based on disability, violation of the right to family care and medical leave, retaliation, whistleblower protection, wrongful discharge, and unfair competition. (ROA #2 in Case No. 2024-01384205.)

On 1/28/2026, Plaintiff, jointly with Defendants, filed the instant Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, and submitted for the Court’s review the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2698 Et Seq.) Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). The motion seeks approval of the parties’ proposed settlement of Plaintiff’s PAGA claims for the nonreversionary gross settlement amount (GSA) of $115,000.

The Court has identified the following issues with the moving papers, which must be addressed by Plaintiff’s counsel before approval can be granted:

1. The moving papers fail to provide the Aggrieved Employees’ estimated individual recovery under the proposed settlement, including the estimated average, low, and high payments to Aggrieved Employees.

2. The Settlement provides that Defendants will fund the GSA in 4 installments. (Settlement, ¶ III.6.b.) However, this provision does not clearly state how much each installment payment will be (including the first one specified to be due within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date).

3. The Settlement Agreement includes an escalator clause. But this is a motion to have the settlement fully approved, and so a specific GSA must be approved upon the granting of this motion. At this point, the parties should know or be able to determine the number of Aggrieved Employees and qualifying pay periods based on the PAGA Period.

4. The effective date of the release is before Defendants’ full funding of the GSA, as the release is effective upon the Effective Date (i.e., the date upon which the Court enters the Final Order), even though Defendants have until 120 days of the Effective Date to fully fund the GSA. (Settlement, ¶¶ I.5, II.6.b., II.8.) Plaintiff’s counsel must either explain why releasing the claims before settlement funds are

10. The proposed order and judgment should include the definitions of the Aggrieved Employees and the PAGA Period.

11. Counsel should not leave blank but should instead propose a realistic Final Accounting hearing date, taking into account the deadlines associated with funding the settlement, mailing distributions, allowing the check-cashing deadline to pass, and depositing uncashed check funds pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The Court usually sets these hearings 9-10 months after final approval if the check-cashing deadline is 180 days. The parties must report to the Court the total amount that was actually paid to Aggrieved Employees and all others in accordance with the settlement agreement. All supporting papers must also be filed at least sixteen (16) court days before the Final Accounting hearing date.

The Court further refers Plaintiff’s counsel to the “Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements & PAGA Settlements” posted on the Court’s website for Department CX102, available at https://voypubapps.occourts.org/complex-civil-calendar.

Plaintiff’s counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the Court’s concerns no later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the continued hearing date. Counsel must also provide redlined versions of all revised papers and an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved with precise citation to any revisions. A supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved is insufficient and will result in a continuance.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling, including to the LWDA, within five (5) court days, and file proof of service. 112 Logue vs. JHA Status Conference Remediation LLC