Iedia Hess v. Heilind Electronics, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No.: CV 23-07200-DMG (MARx) 13 IEDIA HESS, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 15 v. WITH PREJUDICE OF PAGA CLAIM 16 HEILIND ELECTRONICS, INC., 17 Defendant. 18 19 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff IEDIA HESS’s Supplemental Brief re 20 Stipulated Request To Approve FLSA & PAGA Settlement and Dismiss with 21 Prejudice [Doc. # 25], and having previously approved the settlement of all 22 individual claims in this action with the exception of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim, 23 ORDERS as follows: 24 25 1. PAGA requires the Court to review and approve the settlement of the 26 PAGA claim. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(s)(2) (“The superior court shall 27 review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to 28 this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the 1 1 same time that it is submitted to the court.”); see also Smith v. H.F.D. No. 2 55, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01293-KJM-KJN, 2018 WL 1899912, at *2 (E.D. 3 Cal. Apr. 20, 2018) (applying this rule even to settlement of an individual 4 PAGA claim). The Court may lower a civil penalty if “based on the facts 5 and circumstances of the particular case” the award would be “unjust, 6 arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2). 7 Although there is not otherwise a standard to evaluate PAGA settlements, 8 courts have applied the relevant factors set forth in Hanlon v. Chrysler 9 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). See, e.g., Smith, 2018 WL 10 1899912, at *2. 11 2. Plaintiff provided notice to the California Labor and Workforce 12 Development Agency (“LWDA”) concerning the PAGA settlement on 13 October 10, 2024. LWDA has not responded. 14 3. The Court finds no indication that the settlement would be unjust, 15 arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory with respect to Defendant. Cal. 16 Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2). The settlement amount, $50,000, is non-trivial 17 but also not oppressive. 18 4. The Hanlon factors include (1) the strength of a plaintiff’s case; (2) the 19 risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the 20 risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount 21 offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed; (6) the 22 expertise and views of counsel; (7) the presence of government 23 participation; and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed 24 settlement. 150 F.3d at 1026. Factors three, seven, and eight are not 25 relevant to this action. 26 As for the other factors, each favors approval. Plaintiff’s claims are 27 about off-the-clock work, but according to the supplemental brief, there 28 was “limited proof-of-working[]time” and the case is “on the edge of 2 1 provability.” [Doc. # 25 at 5.] In light of these evidentiary issues, the 2 “strength of a plaintiff’s case” factor favors approval. The risk of further 3 litigation would be high for Plaintiff in the event that “the finder of fact 4 may find that she simply did not do the work at issue[.]” Id. The amount 5 offered in settlement represents, in this context, a fair compromise in 6 which “the parties came to a draw in which Defendant pays just over half 7 of the potential alleged exposure and Plaintiff accepts less than she 8 alleges she is due.” Id. at 6. The parties have engaged in informal and 9 formal discovery that has revealed the extent of the evidence to support 10 Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced and has represented 11 employees in individual and class settings, including taking more than a 12 dozen cases through jury trial. [Doc. # 23 at 6.] Defendant similarly is 13 represented by experienced attorneys, including one who has defended 14 employers in class and PAGA actions. 15 Counsel alternatively argue that the appropriate inquiry is that set forth in 16 Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 5th 56, 77 (2021), disapproved 17 of on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 16 Cal. 5th 664, 707 (2024), 18 i.e., “whether [the settlement] is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of 19 PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future 20 ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” In light of the 21 discussion above, the Court finds that the settlement also meets this 22 standard: the compensation is fair given the evidentiary issues noted and 23 is a non-trivial amount that will deter future violations. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves the settlement of the PAGA 2 |}claim, which is dismissed with prejudice (although the claim is dismissed without 3 || prejudice as to any other potentially aggrieved employee). The Clerk shall close 4 || the case. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || DATED: November 20, 2024 _Arlby Sn . 3 DOLLY M/GEE , Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PAGA CLAIM