Tentative Ruling: Laura Brewer et al vs El Encanto Inc
Case Number
22CV00660
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 04/20/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Approval re PAGA Settlement
Tentative Ruling
Laura Brewer, et al. v. El Encanto, Inc.
Case No. 22CV00660
Hearing Date: April 20, 2026
HEARING: Motion of Plaintiffs Laura Brewer and Travis Pons for Approval of PAGA Settlement
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs Laura Brewer and Travis Pons: James R. Hawkins, Anthony Draper
For Defendant El Encanto, Inc.: Emilie C. Woodhead, Samuel R. Freeman
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court continues plaintiffs’ motion for approval of PAGA settlement until June 22, 2026. On or before June 1, 2026, plaintiffs shall file a request for dismissal of their direct Labor Code claims and putative class claims pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.770, submit evidence of the qualifications of the settlement administrator and its agreement to administer this settlement and its anticipated costs, submit the proposed notice to the aggrieved employees, and submit a revised proposed order and judgment consistent with the allocations in this ruling.
Background:
On February 17, 2022, plaintiffs Laura Brewer and Travis Pons initiated this action by filing a class action complaint against defendant El Encanto, Inc., setting forth eight causes of action for: (1) failure to pay lawful wages; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation; (3) failure to provide lawful rest breaks; (4) failure to reimburse employee expenses; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to pay wages at termination; (7) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statements; and (8) violation of unfair competition law.
On April 21, 2022, plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) which added a ninth cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698 through 2699.8 (PAGA).
On May 23, 2022, defendant filed an answer to the FAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 40 affirmative defenses.
On June 8, 2022, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court stayed this action pending the ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 [142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179].
On February 21, 2023, the court continued a status conference via a stipulated order and the parties reported they were evaluating potential settlement options.
On February 26, 2024, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court continued a status conference based on the recitals that the parties participated in a mediation on January 10, 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle the direct Labor Code claims and PAGA claims, the plaintiffs would dismiss their class claims, and the parties’ settlement would resolve the entire action. Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs were to dismiss their class claims.
On December 27, 2024, plaintiffs filed an initial motion (Initial Motion) for approval of PAGA settlement. This motion pertained to a long-form settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) fully executed by the parties on December 18, 2024.
On March 24, 2025, the court denied plaintiffs’ Initial Motion without prejudice. (Minute Order, March 24, 2025.) The court noted that the proposed PAGA penalties and attorney fees were not properly allocated. (Ibid.) In addition, the court raised questions about the notice to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) pertaining to the FAC. (Ibid.) The court also noted that “it would be improper to approve settlement of the PAGA portion of the claim while the Class Action still exists ….” (Ibid.) The court also noted that the evidence supporting the proposed PAGA settlement was insufficient to evaluate whether the settlement was fair. (Ibid.)
On December 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement at issue in this hearing. The Settlement Agreement only resolves the PAGA claims. The Settlement Agreement at issue in this motion is the same agreement at issue in the Initial Motion. This motion is unopposed.
Analysis:
(1) Standards for Review of PAGA Settlement
A PAGA action is a type of qui tam action, in which a private party is authorized to bring an action to recover a penalty on behalf of the government and receive part of the recovery as compensation. (Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 753.) “In bringing such an action, the aggrieved employee acts as the proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies, representing the same legal right and interest as those agencies, in a proceeding that is designed to protect the public, not to benefit private parties.” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The dispute is between the employer and the state. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81.) “Of the civil penalties recovered, 75 percent goes to the [LWDA], leaving the remaining 25 percent for the ‘aggrieved employees.’ ” (Ibid.) Although this allocation has been changed by amendment, the 75/25 split still applies to this action since the PAGA notice was submitted on February 14, 2022. (Draper Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1; see Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (v).)
“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 [LWDA] at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) “A copy of the superior court’s judgment in any civil action filed pursuant to this part and any other order in that action that either provides for or denies an award of civil penalties under this code shall be submitted to the agency within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order.” (Id., subd. (s)(3).)
“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. [¶] 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. [Citations.] 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.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 (Moniz), disapproved on other grounds in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, 710.)
“Taken together, 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 [citation], 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, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 83.)
(2) The Court’s Prior Concerns
As to the pending class allegations, this action was initiated as a class action. (Complaint.) The operative FAC contains class allegations which are still pending in this action. (FAC; Motion, p. 4, ll. 21-23.) Plaintiffs have settled their direct Labor Code claims pursuant to a separate Individual Agreement. (Draper Decl., Ex. 2 at ¶ 2.8.) Plaintiffs are requesting that the court enter judgment based on the Settlement Agreement as to the PAGA claims. (Motion, p. 24, ll. 1-2.) Plaintiffs are also asking the court to “[d]ismiss the Action with prejudice.” (Motion, p. 24, l. 9.)
Under these circumstances, in addition to the motion for approval of the PAGA Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs must file an appropriate request for dismissal of their direct Labor Code claims and the putative class claims, including a clear delineation of claims to be dismissed with prejudice and without prejudice. The putative class claims must be dismissed without prejudice. “A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a).) “Requests for dismissal must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal and must describe the consideration in detail.” (Ibid.) Plaintiffs may request that this dismissal take place concurrently with the approval of the Settlement Agreement or at an earlier date.
As to the allocation of penalties and attorney fees under the Settlement Agreement, the agreement provides that counsel will receive no more than 35 percent of the gross settlement as attorney fees, or $98,000. (Draper Decl., Ex. 2 at ¶ 3.2.1.) However, “[i]f the Court approves … less than the amounts requested, the Administrator will allocate the remainder to the Net Settlement Amount.” (Ibid.)
There is an agreed upon $280,000, non-reversionary gross settlement amount. (Draper Decl., Ex. 2.) The court is inclined to approve as reasonable counsel’s litigation costs of $15,320.32. (Draper Decl., ¶ 29, Ex. 4.) The court is also inclined to approve the settlement administration costs of $5,000, provided that plaintiffs submit evidence of the bid from Xpand Legal Consulting, LLC, and evidence of its agreement and qualifications to administer this settlement. (See Draper Decl., Ex. 2 at ¶ 1.2.)
This leaves $259,679.68 of the net settlement amount for PAGA penalties and attorney fees. The court is inclined to approve attorney fees in the amount of $67,324.36 and PAGA penalties in the amount of $192,355.32 (subject to the 75/25 split between the LWDA and aggrieved employees). Under this allocation, plaintiffs would receive an attorney fee award that is equivalent to 35 percent of the total PAGA penalties. As a lodestar check, counsel’s declaration indicates the attorneys working on this matter spent or will spend an estimated total of 126 attorney hours. (Draper Decl., ¶ 27.) Under this allocation, plaintiffs’ counsel would be compensated at an attorney rate of $534.32 per hour, which is consistent with attorney rates in the community for similar work.
Considering all the circumstances and the maximum estimated PAGA liability of approximately $1,300,000, the court also finds that PAGA penalties in the amount of $192,355.32 appears 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. (See Draper Decl., ¶¶ 16-20.) The involvement of a mediator strongly weighs in favor of finding that the Settlement Agreement represents a non-collusive and arm’s-length agreement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128-129.) “The court undoubtedly should give considerable weight to the competency and integrity of counsel and the involvement of a neutral mediator in assuring itself that a settlement agreement represents an arm’s length transaction entered without self-dealing or other potential misconduct.” (Id. at p. 129.)
As to the issue of notice to the LWDA, plaintiffs submit evidence that the plaintiffs served notice on the LWDA on February 14, 2022, which attached the FAC. (Draper Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) The LWDA’s docket reflects that this notice was served on February 14. (Draper Decl., Ex. 5.) The FAC was filed on April 21, 2022, 66 days later. This issue has been sufficiently addressed.
The court will continue this matter until June 22, 2026. Provided plaintiffs comply with the steps required under this ruling, the court will fully consider the Settlement Agreement for approval at the June 22 hearing.