Tyler Firth vs Yardi Systems Inc

Case Number

23CV03558

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/07/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion Approval

Tentative Ruling

The motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement is granted.

The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted with the motion and intends on signing the same.

Background:

This action commenced on August 15, 2023, by the filing of the original complaint by plaintiff Tyler Firth (“plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against defendant Yardi Systems, Inc. (“defendant”).

Following a stipulation and order to do so, on October 30, 2023, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendant for: (1) Unpaid Overtime, (2) Inaccurate Itemized Wage Statements, (3) Unfair or Unlawful Business Practices, and (4) Violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff also brings the FAC under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) seeking statutory civil penalties on behalf of the State of California.

As alleged in the FAC:

Defendant misclassified plaintiff and other computer software employees as overtime exempt employees and routinely fail to pay overtime wages. (FAC, ¶ 2.) Defendant also failed to routinely provide accurate itemized wage statements to plaintiff and other computer software employees. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff began working for defendant in May 2019, as a software development engineer, until his employment ended in December 2022. (FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff was compensated as an exempt employee, even though his employment did not qualify for any overtime exemption. (Ibid.) Plaintiff was not paid overtime, was not paid due wages upon separation from employment with defendant, and plaintiff was furnished wage statements that failed to show and itemize required information. (Ibid.)

On November 30, 2023, defendant answered the FAC with a general denial and 40 affirmative defenses.

On June 17, 2024, the parties attended mediation with Steven G. Pearl and agreed to settlement terms.

On July 11, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, conditionally certified the settlement class, appointed plaintiff as class representative, appointed class counsel, approved distribution of the proposed notice of class action settlement, and appointed Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the third-party settlement administrator.

Plaintiff now moves for final approval.

There is no opposition or other response filed to this motion.  

Analysis:

“A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) “Any party to a settlement agreement may serve and file a written notice of motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(c).)

In granting preliminary approval of the settlement, the court set this hearing for final approval and ordered notice be given to the class members. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(e), (f).) The court finds that notice has been given to the class in the manner specified by the court.

“Before final approval, the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(g).)

“‘The court has a fiduciary responsibility as guardians of the rights of the absentee class members when deciding whether to approve a settlement agreement.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) The court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include ‘the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’ [Citations.] This list ‘is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.’ [Citation.]” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)

“The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. However, ‘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.’ [Citation.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245, disapproved on other grounds in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 269, 274, fn. 4.)

Under the terms of the settlement, defendant has agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $950,000.00, on a non-reversionary basis, to settle and release all claims asserted by plaintiffs in the class action on behalf of the class, as well as the PAGA action on behalf of the State of California. The settlement defines the Class members as “all current and former exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California who were employed as computer software employees and earned less than (i) $3,632.80 per biweekly pay period at any time after August 15, 2019, (ii) $3,724.00 per biweekly pay period at any time in 2020, (iii) $3,798.40 per biweekly pay period at any time in 2021, (iv) $4,000.00 per biweekly pay period at any time in 2022, or (v) $4,304.00 per biweekly pay period at any time in 2023.” There are approximately 82 Class Members that worked approximately 8,214 relevant workweeks during the Class Period. The Class Period is “August 15, 2019, through December 31, 2023.” The “Net Settlement Amount” available for distribution to the class is the Gross Settlement Amount, less the Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (not more than $316,666.67 in fees, and not more than $20,000.00 in costs), the Class Representatives Incentive Award ($15,000.00 to plaintiff Firth), Settlement Administration Fees (not more than $6,000.00), and 75% of the LWDA payment (a total of $60,000.00, which is 75% of the total PAGA settlement of $80,000.00).

On July 17, 2025, Phoenix received a class list from defendant containing the names, last known mailing addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of employment, and workweeks for each class member during the relevant class period. (Mitzner Decl., ¶ 3.) On July 25, 2025, Phoenix mailed the notice of class action settlement to all 82 class members, none of which were returned. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Phoenix did not receive any requests for exclusion from class members, nor did it receive any objections. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.)

For the final approval, plaintiff seeks the following disbursements from the $950,000.00 settlement amount: (1) $316,666.67 in attorneys’ fees; (2) $10,850.72 in legal costs; (3) $15,000.00 as a Class Representative Incentive Award to plaintiff; (4) $60,000.00 to the LWDA as its share of the $80,000.00 PAGA settlement; (5) $20,000.00 to the PAGA employees as their share of the PAGA settlement; and (6) $5,950.00 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators. The amounts are consistent with both the settlement agreement and the notice to class members.

The “Individual Settlement Payment”, i.e., each class member’s share of the net settlement amount, will be calculated and apportioned from the Net Settlement Amount based upon the number of workweeks the member worked during the class period as a non-exempt employee in California. 20% of individual class payments shall be allocated to wages and subject to IRS Form W-2 reporting; the remainder of the individual class payments shall be allocated to interest and penalties and subject to IRS Form 1099 reporting.

The highest individual settlement share to be paid to any class member is approximately $14,322.27, and the lowest is approximately $252.37, while the average individual settlement share is approximately $6,360.15. (Mitzner Decl., ¶ 13.)

Counsel Yang’s declaration, that was filed with plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, set forth defendant’s estimated exposure on the various types of claims, including the PAGA and unfair business practices claims, and notes the evidentiary difficulties of each of the types of claims, the difficulty in certifying a class for the various claims and maintaining certification through trial, and taking into account defendant’s defenses, that the total amount of damages the class could reasonably expect to be awarded could be significantly less than the maximum exposure.

The settlement amount was a compromise figure. However, after considering the facts, strengths, and weaknesses of the case, the risks and delays posed by further litigation, and class counsels’ experience, counsel concluded that the recovery for each class member is fair and reasonable, taking into consideration the amounts received in other wage and hour class actions, the inherent risks, and the reasonable tailoring of each member’s claim to the settlement award the member will receive.

The Court has carefully analyzed the terms of the settlement, including the nature and scope of the release it requires of absent class members and the representative plaintiffs. The Court finds that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to the parties and class members.

Final approval will be granted, and the court will sign the proposed order submitted by plaintiff.