Cecilia Perez vs Sansum Clinic

Case Number

23CV01312

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/28/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Status Hearing; Motion: Approval re FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT

Tentative Ruling

Cecilia Perez v. Sansum Clinic                               

Case No. 23CV01312

           

Hearing Date: July 28, 2025                                                   

HEARING:              Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action And PAGA Settlement

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Cecilia Perez: Edwin Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, Vartan Madoyan, Lawyers for Justice, PC, S. Emi Minne, Jill J. Parker, Parker & Minne, LLP

For Defendant Sansum Clinic: Jeffrey A. Dinkin, Jared W. Speier, Adam Bouka, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, A Professional Corporation

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement is granted. Counsel shall appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss any other matters remaining for the court at this time.

Background:

On March 27, 2023, plaintiff Cecilia Perez (Perez) filed a class action complaint for damages and enforcement under Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA) against Sansum Clinic (Sansum), alleging eleven causes of action: (1) violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; (2) violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, subdivision (a); (3) violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (4) violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (5) violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (6) violation of Labor Code section 204; (7) violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a); (8) violation of Labor Code section 1174, subdivision (d); (9) violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; (10) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and (11) violation of PAGA.

Perez alleges in the complaint that she was employed by Sansum as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from February 2020 to September 2022. During the period Perez was employed by Sansum, Sansum failed to pay Perez and other class members regular and overtime wages, failed to provide and pay for uninterrupted and missed meal and rest periods, rounded work time recorded by Perez and other class members in a manner that was not fair or neutral on its face, required Perez and other class members to perform health and safety checks related to Covid-19 while off the clock, failed to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation, failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements that included the total number of hours worked by Perez and other class members, failed to keep complete and accurate payroll records for Perez and other class members, and failed to reimburse Perez and other class members for necessary business-related expenses.

Sansum answered the complaint on June 9, 2023, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty affirmative defenses.

On September 13, 2024, Perez filed an unopposed motion (the preliminary approval motion) for an order granting preliminary approval of a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (the Settlement Agreement) entered between Perez and Sansum, and of: (1) a proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Final Hearing (the Class Notice); (2) the manner and method for members of the proposed class to opt-out from or object to the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice; (3) directing the mailing of the Class Notice to members of the proposed class; (4) provisionally certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes only; (5) appointing Perez as the class representative for settlement purposes; (6) appointing S. Emi Minne (Minne) and Jill J. Parker (Parker) of the law firm Parker & Minne, LLP, and Arby Aiwazian (Aiwazian), Joanna Ghosh (Ghosh), and Vartan Madoyan (Madoyan) of Lawyers for Justice, PC, as class counsel for settlement purposes; (7) appointing Simpluris, Inc., (Simpluris or the Settlement Administrator) as the settlement administrator; (8) directing Sansum to, no later than thirty days after the court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, furnish the information necessary for Simpluris to calculate the number of compensable workweeks worked during the applicable periods for all members of the class; and (9) setting a date and time for a final approval hearing.

After a hearing held on November 18, 2024, the court granted the preliminary approval motion, provisionally finding the Settlement Agreement to be fair, adequate, reasonable, in the best interests of the putative class, and within the range of acceptable settlements that could be ultimately given final approval by the court.

In granting the preliminary approval motion, the court preliminarily approved a non-reversionary maximum settlement amount (the MSA) of $2,975,000 to be paid by Sansum to settle and release all claims asserted by Perez on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees employed by Sansum at its California facilities (the Settlement Class) at any time from March 27, 2019 through July 17, 2024, (the Class Period), which includes all current and former non-exempt employees (the PAGA Eligible Employees) employed by Sansum in non-exempt positions from January 19, 2022, and July 17, 2024, (the PAGA Period). Information appearing in the preliminary approval motion showed that the Settlement Class is comprised of approximately 2,355 individuals, and that there exist approximately 1,650 individuals who are PAGA Eligible Employees.

The court appointed Simpluris to serve as the settlement administrator, and approved the appointment of Minne and Parker of the law firm Parker & Minne, LLP, and Aiwazian, Ghosh, and Madoyan of Lawyers for Justice, PC, as “Class Counsel” for settlement purposes. In addition, the court appointed Perez as the “Class Representative”.

The court noted that the net settlement amount that would be available for distribution to members of the Settlement Class or each “Class Member”, including the PAGA Eligible Employees, was estimated to be $1,543,750 after deductions or allocations for: (1) attorney’s fees to be paid to Class Counsel in an amount not to exceed $1,041,250, or 35 percent of the MSA; (2) litigation costs and expenses to be paid to Class Counsel in an amount not to exceed $60,000; (3) a class representative service award to be paid to Perez in the amount of $10,000; (4) “Settlement Administration Costs” to be paid to Simpluris in an amount not to exceed $20,000; (5) a payment of $300,000 (the PAGA Payment) to settle claims for civil penalties under PAGA, of which $225,000 or 75 percent will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the LWDA) and $75,000 or 25 percent will be distributed to the PAGA Eligible Employees.

In addition, Perez presented evidence and information sufficient to show the existence of a numerous, ascertainable class with a well-defined community of interest consisting of approximately 2,355 employees of Sansum who were purportedly subject to meal and rest break violations, and unlawful employment policies and practices with respect to payment of wages and necessary business expenses and the furnishing of accurate wage statements, among other things. Perez also presented information sufficient to show that there exists a reliable means to identify class members from the payroll records of Sansum, that Perez had claims typical of the class, and that Perez could adequately represent the class. Based on this evidence and information, the court determined that there exists reasonable support for provisional certification of the Settlement Class.

Perez also demonstrated that the average individual payments to be paid to each Class Member who does not request exclusion from the settlement will be approximately $593.75, and that the average individual payment to be made to each PAGA Eligible Employee will be approximately $45.45. Perez also provided an explanation of the manner in which these payments will be calculated and distributed on a pro-rata basis, based on the number of calendar weeks or “Compensable Workweeks” that a non-exempt employee was employed during the Class Period, which includes the PAGA Period.

The court further noted that the Settlement Agreement appeared to be the product of an adversarial, arms-length mediation and negotiations by the parties, that the claims released by the Class Members were limited to those which arise out of or are reasonably related to the factual allegations which are or could have been alleged by Perez in this action, including those alleged in the complaint, and that the claims released by PAGA Eligible Employees were limited to claims for civil penalties based on those which are alleged, or that reasonably could have been alleged, by Perez. The risks arising from uncertainties associated with litigating this matter also appeared substantial.

Class Counsel also asserted in the motion that they believe the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Information presented in support of the preliminary approval motion indicated that Class Counsel appear to have substantial experience with similar matters.

The court’s review of the proposed Class Notice also showed that the notice was easy to understand, and sufficient to apprise each Class Member of the claims and defenses asserted in the present action, explain the rights and obligations arising from the proposed settlement, and notify each Class Member of their right and opportunity to opt out or present objections to the Settlement Agreement. The information offered by Perez was sufficient to permit the court to find that the proposed Class Notice complied with due process.

The court also determined that, subject to any objections that may be raised by any Class Member, any unpaid residue resulting from settlement checks which were not cashed within 180 days to be distributed to Legal Aid at Work, was authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 384, and appeared to be the product of a negotiated compromise. There was no information to suggest that the agreed upon distribution of the unpaid residue was the product of fraud or collusion, or was in any respect unreasonable, unfair, or inappropriate.

The information and evidence presented by Perez also showed that Perez submitted the Settlement Agreement to the LWDA on the same day Perez filed the preliminary approval motion. There was no information to suggest that the LWDA indicated that it had any objection to the Settlement Agreement  or intended to intervene in this action.

On November 19, 2024, the court entered an order (the November 19 Order) in which the court, among other things, scheduled a hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement for April 21, 2025, and noted that a determination of the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs, the class representative service award to be paid to Perez, and the Settlement Administration Costs, would be made at the final settlement hearing.

Court records reflect that on March 13, 2025, the court signed an order approving a joint stipulation of the parties to permit Perez to file an overlength memorandum in support of Perez’s forthcoming motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement which exceeds the page limit set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).

Court records further reflect that on April 4, 2025, Perez filed a status report stating that on March 17, 2025, Sansum’s counsel notified Perez’s counsel that data originally provided by Sansum to Simpluris inadvertently omitted individuals whose employment with Sansum terminated prior to September 2023 (the Omitted Class Members), and that counsel for the parties were finalizing a stipulation to continue the hearing date on Perez’s forthcoming motion for final approval in order to allow sufficient time for Sansum to provide Simpluris with information for the Omitted Class Members, for Simpluris to send the Class Notice to the Omitted Class Members and an updated Class Notice to members of the Settlement Class who previously received notice of the Settlement Agreement, and to permit members of the Settlement Class to submit disputes, request exclusion from, or object to the Settlement Agreement. (Apr. 4, 2025, Status Report.)

On April 9, 2025, the parties submitted a joint stipulation which the court reviewed and upon which the court, on April 10, 2025, signed and entered an order (the April 10 Order): (1) directing Sansum to, no later than April 7, 2025, provide the Settlement Administrator with full and complete information for each Class Member; (2) that each Class Member who previously received notice of the Settlement Agreement (the Existing Class Members) shall receive an updated Class Notice reflecting their updated estimated individual payment and updated final approval hearing date, in the form attached to the April 10 Order as exhibit A; (3) that the Existing Class Members shall have an additional 45 calendar days from the date the updated Class Notice is mailed to submit disputes regarding, opt-out of, or object to the Settlement Agreement and the November 19 Order; (4) that the Omitted Class Members shall receive a Class Notice, in the form attached to the April 10 Order as exhibit B; (5) that the Omitted Class Members shall be provided 45 calendar days from the date the Class Notice is mailed to submit disputes regarding, opt-out of, or object to the Settlement Agreement and the November 19 Order; (6) that the updated Class Notice to the Existing Class Members and the Class Notice to the Omitted Class Members shall be mailed to the Class Members by the Settlement Administrator in both English and Spanish no later than fourteen calendar days after the Settlement Administrator receives updated data from Sansum; (7) that the additional fees incurred to administer the settlement shall be paid from MSA consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the November 19 Order, and (8) continuing the hearing on Perez’s forthcoming motion for final approval to July 28, 2025. (Apr. 10, 2024, Order.)

On July 2, 2025, Perez filed the present motion for an order granting final approval of: (1) the Settlement Agreement; (2) an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,041,250, or 35 percent of the MSA, to Class Counsel; (3) payment of the amount of $50,389.14 to Class Counsel for litigation costs and expenses; (4) payment of the class representative service award to Perez in the amount of $10,000; (5) payment of the amount of $25,136 to the Settlement Administrator for costs of settlement administration; (6) payment of the amount of $300,000 for penalties pursuant to PAGA, of which seventy-five percent or $225,000 will be paid to the LWDA and twenty-five percent or $75,000 will be distributed to the PAGA Eligible Employees; (7) the funding and distribution of the MSA in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and (8) the scheduling of a final accounting hearing on May 24, 2027.

The present motion is supported by a declaration of Lisa Pavlik (Pavlik), who is the Project Manager for Simpluris. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 1.) Pavlik provides a description of the settlement administration services provided or to be provided by Simpluris in this action. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 3.)

Pavlik states that on December 19, 2024, Sansum provided to Simpluris a list containing Class Member’s and PAGA Eligible Employee’s full names, last known mailing addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment as a non-exempt employee during the Class Period, and other information necessary to calculate the number of “Compensable Workweeks” worked during the Class Period and PAGA Period (collectively, the Class Data). (Pavlik Decl., ¶  5.) According to Pavlik, the Class Data included information for 1,328 individuals whose mailing addresses were processed and updated utilizing the National Change of Address Database (NCOA), which contains change of address requests filed with the United States Postal Service (USPS). (Pavlik Decl., ¶  6.) Pavlik asserts that, in the event an individual had filed with the USPS a change of address request, the address listed with the NCOA would be utilized in connection with the mailing of the Class Notice. (Ibid.) Prior to mailing the Class Notice, Simpluris was able to locate 78 updated addresses using the NCOA. (Ibid.)

Pavlik further states that on January 14, 2025, the Class Notice was mailed, in English and Spanish, to the 1,328 individuals identified as Class Members who, according to Pavlik, were also all identified as PAGA Eligible Employees. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 7.)

After the initial mailing described above, 43 Class Notices were returned by the USPS to Simpluris. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 8.) Pavlik states that, if a Class Notice was returned as undeliverable and without a forwarding address, Simpluris performed an advanced address search (i.e., skip trace) through Accurint, a research tool owned by Lexis-Nexis, by using the Class Member’s name and previous address (Ibid.) Simpluris was able to locate 33 updated addresses and promptly mailed a Class Notice to those updated addresses. (Ibid.) There exist 10 Class Notices that remain undeliverable from the initial mailing. (Ibid.)

Following the initial mailing of the Class Notice, Simpluris was contacted by two individuals who requested inclusion in the Settlement Class. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 9.) On January 27, 2025, Simpluris provided these individuals’ names to Sansum’s counsel. (Ibid.) On February 12, 2025, Sansum confirmed these individuals were Class Members with 198 workweeks and 21 PAGA workweeks. (Ibid.) On February 13, 2025, Simpluris mailed the Class Notice to these two Class Members. (Ibid.)

In March 2025, Simpluris was informed by Sansum’s counsel that the Class Data provided on December 19, 2024, inadvertently did not include the Omitted Class Members. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 10.) On April 11, 2025, Simpluris received the April 10 Order, the Class Notice to be sent to the Omitted Class Members, and the updated Class Notice to be sent to the Existing Class Members pursuant to that order. (Ibid.) On April 18, 2025, Sansum provided to Simpluris a list containing each Class Member’s and PAGA-Eligible Employee’s full names, last known mailing addresses, Social Security Numbers, the number of compensable workweeks worked during the Class Period and PAGA period noted above (collectively, the Updated Class Data) which included data for 2,695 individuals. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 11.)

Pavlik states that on May 2, 2025, the updated Class Notice was mailed to 1,330 individuals identified as the Existing Class Members and the Class Notice was mailed to the 1,365 individuals identified as the Omitted Class Members, such that there exist 2,695 Class Members, of which 2,032 were identified as PAGA Eligible Employees. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 12 & Exhs. B & C.) These “Supplemental Class Notices” were mailed in English and Spanish. (Ibid.)

Pavlik asserts that 177 Supplemental Class Notices were returned to Simpluris, and that Simpluris performed an advanced address search using Accurint with respect to any Supplemental Class Notice that was returned by the USPS as undeliverable and without a forwarding address, and that this advance search enabled Simpluris to locate 153 updated addresses to which a Supplemental Class Notice was mailed. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 13.) There remain 24 Supplemental Class Notices which are undeliverable. (Ibid.) Pavlik further asserts that the escalator clause of the Settlement Agreement was not triggered such that the MSA remains the amount further described above. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 14.)

In addition, Pavlik states that Simpluris added the Settlement Agreement on their website for Class Members to obtain and view, which has been available to the public since January 14, 2025, that an email address was included in the Class Notice for the purpose of allowing Class Members to make inquiries regarding the Settlement Agreement, submit requests for exclusion or objections, or to dispute workweeks, and that a toll-free telephone number which is accessible 24 hours a day was included in the Class Notice to allow the Class Members to call Simpluris and make inquiries regarding the Settlement Agreement. (Pavlik Decl., ¶¶ 15-17.)

According to Pavlik, the initial mailing deadline for Class Members to submit a request to be excluded or an objection to the Settlement Agreement or to submit a workweeks dispute was February 28, 2025, that the re-mailed Class Notice extended deadline was March 7, 2025, and that the renotification deadline for Class Members to submit an exclusion request, an objection, or a dispute regarding workweeks was June 16, 2025. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 18.) Simpluris has received three requests to be excluded from the Settlement Agreement, has not received any objections to the Settlement Agreement, and has not received any disputes regarding workweeks from any Class Member or PAGA Eligible Employee. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ ¶ 19-21.)

Pavlik states that there exist 2,692 participating Class Members with 283,661 workweeks who will be paid their portion of the net settlement amount, and that 2,032 of these participating Class Members were identified as PAGA Eligible Employees with 74,064 PAGA workweeks who will be receive individual payments. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 22.) The net settlement amount available for distribution to the Class Members totals $1,548,224.86, after subtracting attorney’s fees, litigation costs, the class representative service award, the payment to the LWDA, the individual PAGA payments, and the Settlement Administration Costs from the MSA. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 23.) Pavlik further states that the average estimated individual payment is $575.12, the highest estimated individual payment is $1,642.86, and the lowest estimated individual payment is $5.46. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 24.)

In addition, the individuals identified as PAGA Eligible will receive an average estimated payment of $36.91, with the highest payment estimated to total $80.00, and the lowest payment estimated to total $1.01. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 26.)

Pavlik further states that the cost for services to administer the Settlement Agreement, including anticipated future costs, totals $25,136. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 27.)

Perez also submits a Minne declaration in which Minne states that on November 21, 2024, Minne sent to Simpluris copies of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice, the court’s order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, and the complaint filed by Perez in this action. (Minne Decl., ¶ 18.)

On December 19, 2024, Minne received an email from the Settlement Administrator confirming that it had received the class data from Sansum, and on January 15, 2025, received an email from the Settlement Administrator confirming that it had completed mailing of the Class Notice on January 14, 2025. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.)

On March 17, 2025, Sansum’s counsel informed Minne that Sansum had inadvertently omitted the Omitted Class Members from the class data provided to the Settlement Administrator on December 19, 2024. (Minne Decl., ¶ 21.) Minne explains that, to address this error, the parties filed the joint stipulation described above on April 9, 2025, which, as noted above, the court approved pursuant to the April 10 Order, which Minne asserts also approved the format of the proposed Class Notices to be sent to the Omitted Class Members and updated Class Notices to be sent to the Existing Class Members (i.e., the Supplemental Class Notices). (Ibid.)

On May 5, 2025, Minne received from the Settlement Administrator an email confirming that it had completed mailing of the Supplemental Class Notices to all Class Members on May 2, 2025. (Minne Decl., ¶ 22.) Minne was also informed by the Settlement Administrator that no objections to the Settlement Agreement have been asserted, that 99.89 percent of the Class Members will participate in the Settlement Agreement, and that the escalator clause of the Settlement Agreement was not triggered. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 23, 25 & 42.)

Minne also sets forth detailed information describing Minne’s educational background, memberships in various organizations, experience, and qualifications with respect to representing employees in disputes against employers, and wage and hour class and representative PAGA actions. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 44-51.)

The hourly rate of Minne and Minne’s partner, Parker, is $800. (Minne Decl., ¶  60.) Minne declares that Class Counsel expended 90.5 hours litigating this action resulting in a “lodestar” fee of $72,400. (Minne Decl., ¶ 62.) Minne estimates that Class Counsel will expend an additional 20 hours after final approval of the Settlement Agreement to monitor the settlement payment process, answer questions from Class Members, and provide a final accounting report. (Ibid.) Attached to the Minne declaration is a report detailing the time expended by Class Counsel, which Minne contends reflects Class Counsel’s standard practice to maintain contemporaneous records of all attorney work performed. (Minne Decl., ¶  63 & Exh. 6.) According to Minne, the combined estimated “lodestar” amount of Class Counsel’s fees is $398,735. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 64-65.)

Minne asserts that Class Counsel expended a significant amount of time and resources in this case with payment contingent on its outcome such that, had Class Counsel failed to succeed, counsel would not be compensated. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 53 & 55.) Minne provides a description of the services provided by Class Counsel during the course of the litigation, and information regarding what Minne contends are the skills necessary to successfully litigate Perez’s claims which, according to Minne, involved analyzing and investigating complex legal and factual issues as further described in the Minne declaration. (Minne Decl., ¶ 53-55 & 68.) Minne also notes that this matter precluded other work that Class Counsel may have taken due to the time and resources expended to litigate this case. (Minne Decl., ¶ 69.)

Minne anticipates that Minne’s law firm will incur a total of $477.72 in costs and expenses to litigate this action, which includes $277.72 in current costs and $200 in future costs associated with: (1) filing the present motion; (2) monitoring distribution of the MSA; and (3) filing a final accounting declaration. (Minne Decl., ¶ 73.) Minne also submits a report detailing the expenses incurred by Parker & Minne, LLP. (Ibid. & Exh. 7.) Minne is also informed that Minne’s co-counsel, Lawyers for Justice, PC, has incurred a total of $49,911.42 in costs and expenses to litigate this action. (Minne Decl., ¶ 74.) The combined total of the costs requested by Class Counsel is $50,389.14, which Minne asserts is less than the $60,000 provided for in the Settlement Agreement, with the remaining $9,610.86 to be included in the net settlement amount to be distributed to the participating Class Members. (Minne Decl., ¶ 75.)

Minne also provides a description of the time and effort expended, and the risks incurred and assumed by, Perez. (Minne Decl., ¶¶ 76-80.)

Minne further asserts that, though the expenses to administer the Settlement Agreement were originally anticipated not to exceed $20,000, these costs increased due to the need for the mailing of the Supplemental Class Notices further described above. (Minne Decl., ¶ 81.) Minne contends that, in the April 10 Order, the court approved payment of these increased costs from the MSA. (Ibid.)

The motion is also supported by a declaration of Madoyan, who provides a detailed description of the services provided and work performed by Lawyers for Justice, PC, (LFJ) in this action, and information to show the experience and qualifications of this firm. (Madoyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-9 & 14-18.)

Madoyan states that attorneys at LFJ have expended a total of 365.10 hours in this action, and attaches to the Madoyan declaration an “Attorney Task and Time Chart” setting forth the nature of the services performed by LFJ, and the time incurred to perform those services. (Madoyan Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. 1.) Further, Madoyan asserts that the work performed in this action by LFJ, together with counsel’s experience, supports a reasonable blended hourly rate of compensation of at least $850, and a lodestar value of $310,335. (Madoyan Decl., ¶ 13.) LFJ also seeks reimbursement for litigation costs and expenses in the total amount of $49,911.42. (Madoyan Decl., ¶ 19.)

In the Perez declaration submitted in support of the present motion, Perez states that she is a former employee of Sansum, and was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Ophthalmic Assistant and Scribe from approximately February 2020 to September 2022. (Perez Decl., ¶ 3.) After Perez’s employment with Sansum ended, Perez reached out to LFJ to discuss why she believed she was undercompensated during her employment with Sansum, and to take steps to make sure Sansum was held accountable for not properly paying its employees. (Perez Decl., ¶ 4.)

Perez states that she understands that she has a fiduciary duty to the potential class, which was explained to Perez by her counsel, that she must put the interests of the class above her own, that she would be required to monitor the progress of the lawsuit, to provide all relevant facts to assist her counsel, to respond to written and other discovery, and to obtain the best possible recovery for the Class Members, among other things. (Perez Decl., ¶ 5.)

Perez also provides a description of the tasks performed and responsibilities undertaken by Perez during the course of this proceeding. (Perez Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Perez states that she has reviewed the Settlement Agreement, has discussed its terms with her counsel, and believes the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable in light of the issues presented in this action. (Perez Decl., ¶ 8.) Perez understands that the only compensation she will receive is the class representative service award approved by the court and Perez’s share of the MSA. (Perez Decl., ¶ 15.) Perez also was provided with a written disclosure of, and consented to, Class Counsel’s share of attorney’s fees awarded in this case. (Perez Decl., ¶ 16.)

The above summary is not intended to be exhaustive, and the court has considered all relevant and admissible information and evidence submitted in support of the present motion.

Analysis:

After preliminary approval of a class action settlement and notice to the class, the final approval hearing is the final step in the approval process. During the final approval hearing, the court conducts a more detailed inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(g).) If the court approves the settlement agreement at the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter a judgment that includes a provision for the court to retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(h) & (f).)

“[A] trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair.” (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) A class action settlement is presumptively fair if it was reached through arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after extensive investigation, litigation, and discovery. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) A presumption of fairness exists where (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining, (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation, and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.) To the extent a settlement includes claims for civil penalties under PAGA, though the statute “does not require the trial court to act as a fiduciary for aggrieved employees,” the court applies the same factors and standards of review to evaluate the fairness of a PAGA settlement. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76-77; Lab. Code, § 2699.)

The first three elements which give rise to the presumption of fairness were established at the time of preliminary approval. No evidence has been presented which would alter the court’s preliminary determination of each of these elements. With respect to the fourth element, the information presented by Pavlik is sufficient to show that Simpluris did not receive any objections to the Settlement Agreement.

Based on the information and evidence presented in the present motion and under the totality of circumstances present here, it appears to the court that the Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved was reached through an arm’s-length bargaining process between the parties, that investigation and discovery were sufficient to permit counsel and the court to act intelligently, that counsel has substantial experience litigating class and PAGA actions such as the present action, and that there were no objections to the Settlement Agreement.

As further discussed above, pursuant to the April 10 Order, the Court approved the distribution of the Supplemental Class Notices in the manner set forth in that order. The distribution of these notices as described in the Pavlik declaration appears to comply with the April 10 Order. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

For all reasons further discussed above, the court affirms and approves the Settlement Agreement and certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes. The court also affirms and approves the allocation of $300,000 of the MSA to civil penalties under PAGA, and affirms and approves payment in the amount of $225,000 to the LWDA, as required by PAGA. Pursuant to the April 10 Order, the court approved a higher payment of the Settlement Administration Costs to Simpluris. The stipulation of the parties upon which the April 10 Order was signed and entered reflects that this payment totals $25,136.

As to Perez’s request for approval of a class representative service award in the amount of $10,000 in addition to any amounts Perez may be otherwise entitled to receive as a Class Member or PAGA Eligible Employee, considering the time and efforts expended by Perez to assist Class Counsel in pursuing this matter, at substantial reputational risk and with a small financial interest in the outcome of this litigation, the court finds that a service award to Perez in the amount of $10,000 is reasonable. The court will therefore approve the class representative service award to Perez in the amount of $10,000. The court further affirms named plaintiff Perez as the class representative.

Perez also requests an award of attorney’s fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $1,041,250.

“[T]he court’s task in a negotiated settlement of fees is to determine if the negotiated fee is fair. That task requires the court to review the settlement as a whole, including the fee award, to ensure that it was fairly and honestly negotiated, is not collusive and adequately protects the interests of the [parties].” (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 444.)

Information submitted by Perez and her counsel reflects that the lodestar amount of the attorney’s fees requested by Perez includes a positive multiplier to account for, among other things, the contingent nature of the risk presented. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 489-490 [general discussion].) Under the totality of the circumstances present here, and considering the information provided in the declarations of Minne and Madoyan further described above as well as the contingent nature of the representation and its attendant risks, the attorney’s fees and costs sought by Class Counsel appear to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the court will approve the payment to Class Counsel in the amount of $1,041,250.

The court will also approve payment of litigation expenses to Class Counsel in the amount of $50,389.14.

For all reasons stated above, the court will grant the motion as follows: (1) the court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement; (2) the court grants final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (3) the court finds that notice has been given to 2,695 Class Members, and that 24 Supplemental Class Notices remain undeliverable; (4) the court appoints Simpluris as the settlement administrator; (5) the court finds that Simpluris has not received any objections to the Settlement Agreement, or disputes regarding the calculation of workweeks from any Class Members; (6) the court appoints Parker & Minne, LLP, and Lawyers for Justice, PC, as settlement class counsel; (7) the court appoints plaintiff Cecilia Perez as the settlement class representative; (8) the court approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement as to the claims for civil penalties alleged under PAGA, and the allocation of $300,000 to settle these claims; (9) the court approves an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,041,250; (10) the court approves an award of litigation expenses in the amount of $50,389.14; (11) the court approves a class representative service payment to Perez in the amount of $10,000; and (12) the court approved an award of settlement administration costs to Simpluris in the amount of $25,136, pursuant to the April 10 Order.

The court will reserve jurisdiction over the parties for the purpose of implementing, enforcing, and or administering the Settlement Agreement, or enforcing the terms of the judgement. Counsel shall appear at the hearing of the motion and shall be prepared to discuss an appropriate date for submission of a final report, and any other matters remaining at this time.