Tentative Ruling: Laura Brewer et al vs El Encanto Inc

Case Number

22CV00660

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/15/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Approval

Tentative Ruling

Laura Brewer, et al. v. El Encanto, Inc. 

Case No. 22CV00660

Hearing Date: June 15, 2026

Hearing: Motion of Plaintiffs Laura Brewer and Travis Pons for Approval of PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling: On May 4, 2026, the court issued a minute order requiring plaintiffs to submit additional supporting information or documents on or before June 1, 2026. The court’s records do not reflect a timely filing by plaintiffs in response to the court’s May 4 order. Counsel shall appear and update the court as to the status of this settlement and plaintiff’s response to the May 4 order.

Background/Analysis:

This is a motion for approval of a PAGA settlement. As noted in the May 4, 2026, minute order (May 4 Order): The PAGA period runs from February 15, 2021, through the date of approval, unless the defendant chooses to cut off the PAGA period at a sooner date under circumstances permitted under the Settlement Agreement. (Compare Draper Decl., Ex. 2 at ¶ 1.24 [“ ‘PAGA Period’ means the period from February 15, 2021 through the date the Court grants approval of this Settlement.”] with ¶ 8.1 [“Should the qualifying pay periods worked by the Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period ultimately increase by more than 10% … Defendant, at its option, can either choose to: (1) cut off the end date for the PAGA Period as of the date on which the number of pay periods reaches 13,860 or (2) increase the Gross Settlement Amount on a proportional basis equal to the percentage increase in the number of pay periods worked by the Aggrieved Employees above the 10% ….”].) However, the release appears to run through the date of approval regardless of whether the defendant chooses to cut off the PAGA period at an earlier date. (Id. at ¶ 5.1 [“The release shall run through the date the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, grants approval of the Settlement.”].)

As also noted in the May 4 Order: Under PAGA, “[a]ny employee who prevails in any action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (k)(1).) Absent statutory authority or case law expressly permitting a percentage of the common fund to calculate attorney fees in a PAGA-only settlement, the court in its discretion is inclined to utilize the traditional lodestar method. (See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

As required by the May 4 Order: Plaintiffs were ordered to submit additional information and documents by June 1, including: (1) an addendum to the agreement stating that the release will coincide with the end of the class period if defendant exercises its rights under the escalator clause to cut short the PAGA period or evidence that the escalator clause will not be exercised by defendant to cut short the PAGA period; and (2) a declaration regarding attorney fees under the lodestar method.  

The court’s records do not reflect a timely filing in response to the May 4 Order.