Henry Fredy Castillo Cabel vs West Covina Wholesale Nursery LLC

Case Number

23CV03928

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/16/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling

Henry Fredy Castillo Cabell v. West Covina Wholesale Nursery, LLC

Case No. 23CV03928

           

Hearing Date: June 16, 2025                                                  

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

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Henry Fredy Castillo Cabell: Megan E. Ross, Hannah Becker, Melmed Law Group P.C.

For Defendant West Covina Wholesale Nursery, LLC:  Jeffrey A. Dinkin, Jared W. Speier, Cory Baker, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of plaintiff for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement is granted. Counsel shall appear at the hearing on the motion and be prepared to discuss scheduling for the final settlement hearing and any other matters remaining for the court at this time.

Background:

On September 11, 2023, plaintiff Henry Fredy Castillo Cabell (Cabell) filed a class action complaint against defendant West Covina Wholesale Nursery, LLC (West Covina), alleging ten causes of action: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (5) failure to maintain accurate employment records; (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment; (7) failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; (8) failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures; (9) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (10) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law). Cabell brings the complaint on behalf of himself and all individuals who are or were employed by West Covina as non-exempt employees from four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

As alleged in the complaint, during the time Cabell worked for West Covina, West Covina failed to compensate Cabell and other class members for all hours worked including overtime, denied meal and rest breaks, deducted time for denied meal breaks, failed to timely pay wages within seven calendar days following the close of payroll, failed to pay sums due at the time of termination and thereafter, failed to maintain and provide accurate wage statements, and failed to provide reimbursement for expenses incurred during the course of Cabell’s duties.

On October 13, 2023, West Covina answered the complaint by generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-one affirmative defenses.

On January 12, 2024, with leave of court, Cabell filed a first amended complaint (the FAC) adding an eleventh cause of action for civil penalties under Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA).

On August 2, 2024, Cabell filed a notice stating that the parties reached a settlement of this matter on behalf of Cabell, the putative class, and all aggrieved employees.

On August 28, 2024, Cabell filed an unopposed motion for an order preliminarily approving, among other things, the parties’ settlement agreement.

On September 23, 2024, the court entered a Minute Order taking the August 28, 2024, motion of Cabell off-calendar due to the opening memorandum exceeding page limits set forth in the California Rules of Court.

On February 14, 2025, Cabell filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement, which is supported by declarations of Cabell and his counsel, Jonathan Melmed (Melmed).

On March 17, 2025, Cabell filed an amended motion (the motion or present motion) for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement, which is also supported by separately filed declarations of Cabell and Melmed submitted concurrently with the present motion.

On April 29, 2025, West Covina filed a notice stating that it does not oppose the present motion.

The March 17, 2025, Melmed declaration:

In the March 17, 2025, Melmed declaration, Melmed states that West Covina is a plant growing yard headquartered in La Verne, California, which has operated in locations throughout the state since 1997. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 14.) Cabell worked for West Covina as a gardener from approximately August of 2021 to June of 2023, and alleges that West Covina’s non-exempt employees experienced various violations of California’s wage-and-hour laws. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 14-15.)

Melmed further states that on July 1, 2024, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with Steven Serratore, who Melmed describes as a full-time mediator with extensive experience in California wage and hour class action lawsuits. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 17.) Prior to and during mediation, the parties exchanged information and discussed the risks and delays associated with additional litigation, and evidentiary challenges with respect to establishing the parties’ claims and defenses. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 18.) Melmed contends that the issues were contentious based on the factual and legal complexity of this case. (Ibid.)

According to Melmed, the parties reached an agreement which was executed on August 27, 2024. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 19.) Attached as exhibit A to the Melmed declaration is a copy of a “Settlement Agreement and Release of Class Action” (the Settlement Agreement), ostensibly executed by Cabell on August 19, 2024, and by West Covina on August 27, 2024. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A at pp. 36-37.)

Melmed explains that the Settlement Agreement, which resolves the claims of the putative class, was reached following extensive investigation and discovery, a full-day mediation, and “comprehensive arm’s-length settlement discussions....” (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 4 & 6.) Melmed believes the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and Melmed has no knowledge of any conflicting interests between Melmed’s firm, Cabell, or any other class member or aggrieved employee. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

Melmed asserts that Cabell’s claims stem from several categories of illegal employment practices, the most important of which relate to West Covina’s rounding of employee timecards to the nearest hour, failure to pay employees for off-the-clock time, and failure to institute policies for meal breaks until 2024. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 20.) West Covina has persistently denied all liability associated with these claims that Cabell, class members, or aggrieved employees are entitled to any relief. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 21.) West Covina also denies that these allegations are appropriate for class or representative treatment and maintains that it complied with California law in all respects. (Ibid.)

Melmed also provides a summary of the claims and defenses asserted by the parties to this action, and the potential damages with respect to minimum wage, meal period, and rest period violations alleged in this action, including damages arising from derivative causes of action for waiting time penalties and wage statement violations, and penalties under PAGA. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 22-40.)

Based on the parties’ respective claims and defenses as further described in the Melmed declaration, Melmed asserts that, due to West Covina’s practice of unlawful rounding, West Covina’s alleged maximum exposure for unpaid wage claims is approximately $234,886, which Cabell discounted by 40 percent due to the risk that this court would agree with West Covina’s good faith defense that it sometimes paid workers for more than the hours worked. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 25.) Cabell estimates that West Covina’s realistic exposure for this claim is approximately $140,931.60. (Ibid.)

Melmed further states that, based on the claims, defenses, and potential damages at issue in this action, West Covina’s exposure for unpaid wage claims totals approximately $1,779,344, which Cabell discounted by 75 percent also due to the risk that the court would agree with the good faith defense asserted by West Covina and described above. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 29.) Cabell estimates that West Covina’s realistic exposure for this claim is approximately $502,884.50. (Ibid.)

As to the alleged rest period violations, Melmed asserts that there exist serious challenges to certification and manageability of these claims based on West Covina’s arguments that its employees were provided with compliant rest periods and worked with different supervisors who may have instructed West Covina’s employees differently regarding rest breaks. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 31.) Cabell discounted potential rest period damages for settlement purposes due to the difficulty of demonstrating missed rest breaks. (Ibid.)

As to derivative waiting time penalties, Cabell estimated that 212 employees terminated their employment during the waiting time date range, and that the maximum value of the waiting time penalty claim was derived from the following formula: 212 employees × 30 days × 7.7 hours average per day × average rate of pay of $15.93 per hour (or $780,123.96). (Melmed Decl., ¶ 34.) After applying a 60 percent discount based on the risk that the court would agree with West Covina’s good faith defense described above, and because the waiting time penalty claim is derivative of underlying claims which may fail to be certified or to succeed on the merits, Cabell estimates West Covina’s realistic exposure for waiting time penalties is approximately $312,049.58. (Ibid.)

Regarding Cabell’s claim for wage statement penalties, Cabell calculated that approximately 359 members of the class worked a total of 4,931 pay periods during the applicable statutory period for this claim, and that West Covina’s maximum exposure for this claim totals $442,200. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 37.) Cabell applied a 20 percent discount based on the risk that the court would either find that there did not exist wage statement errors by West Covina, or that any wage statement errors made by West Covina were not knowing, intentional, and caused little or no injury to the members of the class. (Ibid.) Melmed asserts that West Covina’s realistic exposure for this claim is $353,760. (Ibid.)

As to Cabell’s claim for penalties under PAGA, Melmed explains that there are 4,931 pay periods within the applicable period under PAGA, and that West Covina’s maximum exposure to penalties under PAGA totals $1,486,800. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 40.) Melmed states that, based on West Covina’s defenses to the PAGA claim and the risk that the court would reduce the amount of PAGA penalties awarded in this action, considering that the penalties rival the wages actually owed, Cabell “followed a slightly-higher approach” than was adopted in Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504, and ascribed a settlement value of $15 in PAGA penalties per pay period, for a total realistic exposure of $73,965. (Ibid.)

After applying what Melmed describes as appropriate discounts on the maximum settlement values further discussed above, Melmed states that West Covina’s realistic exposure in this action totals $1,242,659.08. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 41.) Melmed contends that if the court grants preliminary approval, Cabell will have recovered 32 percent of this amount, which Melmed contends is a fair compromise of the claims at issue. (Ibid)

Melmed also describes Cabell’s investigation of the claims alleged in this action which included telephonic conferences; inspecting and analyzing time sheets, wage statements, relevant employment policies, and other information produced by the parties; analyzing West Covina’s defenses; investigating the viability of class treatment of the claims asserted in the action; analyzing potential class-wide damages and information sufficient to understand West Covina’s potential defenses; researching law applicable to the claims and defenses at issue in the action; and assembling and analyzing data to calculate damages. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 42.)

Melmed asserts that, prior to mediation, the parties spent months to develop the factual record for this case by engaging in informal discovery and drafting mediation briefs, which ensured both sides were fully informed about the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions at the mediation and during subsequent settlement negotiations. (Melmed Decl., ¶ 53.)

Melmed also asserts that the parties were represented by skilled and experienced counsel with extensive backgrounds in complex litigation and similar wage and hour class actions, and that the Settlement Agreement was reached after performing extensive and thorough factual investigations, research, calculations, and risk evaluations, and a substantial exchange of documents all of which was sufficient to evaluate West Covina’s defenses, which Melmed characterizes as “strong” and which create a real possibility that the claims might not be certified, or may fail on their merits. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 54-55.)

According to Melmed, Cabell filed notice of his claims with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the LWDA) on September 11, 2023, and that the Settlement Agreement was submitted to the LWDA. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 64-65 & Exhs. D & E.)

The Settlement Agreement:

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the “Settlement Class” includes all individuals who are or were employed by West Covina as nonexempt employees in California from September 11, 2019, through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement (the Class Period). (Melmed Decl., Exh. A [Settlement Agreement], ¶¶ 1.10, 1.15, & 1.39.) The term “Class Member” is defined to include any person who is a prospective member of the Settlement Class, or, if incompetent or deceased, that person’s legal guardian, executor, heir, or successor in interest. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.7.) A “Class Participant” is defined as any Class Member who does not timely request exclusion from the Settlement Agreement. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.9.)

The Settlement Class consists of approximately 359 Class Members who worked a total of approximately 26,000 workweeks as of July 1, 2024. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.39.) Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement the parties agree to conditional class certification of the Settlement Class. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.)

The Settlement Agreement also provides that the “PAGA Settlement Class” will include all individuals (the Aggrieved Employees) who are or were employed by West Covina as non-exempt employees in California from September 11, 2022, through the date of court approval of the settlement (the PAGA Period). (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.29-1.30.) The PAGA Settlement Class consists of approximately 190 employees that worked a total of approximately 4,931 pay periods as of July 1, 2024. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.30.)

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to settle this action for a Gross Settlement Amount or “GSA” of $400,000, which is non-reversionary. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 5.1.) The GSA includes the following amounts, which will be deducted from the GSA to determine the Net Settlement Amount (the NSA) available for distribution to the Settlement Class: costs and expenses associated with settlement administration paid to Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions (Phoenix or, at times, the Settlement Administrator), in an amount not to exceed $8,000; attorney’s fees paid to Megan E. Ross and Hannah Becker of Melmed Law Group P.C. (the Class Counsel) in an amount not to exceed $133,333.33; litigation costs and expenses paid to Class Counsel in an amount not to exceed $23,000; a monetary payment (the Incentive Award) paid to Cabell, who the parties agree will be designated as the ”Class Representative”; and a “PAGA Payment” in the amount of $25,000, of which the amount of $18,750 will be paid to the LWDA. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.2, 1.6, 1.11, 1.21, 1.23, 1.25, 1.28, 1.38, & 8.1.)

The PAGA Payment described above reflects the amount of civil penalties under PAGA that the parties agree constitutes a reasonable settlement of the PAGA claims asserted in this action. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.28.) In addition to the amount to be distributed to the LWDA described above, the amount of $6,250, or 25 percent of the PAGA Payment, will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Class. (Ibid.)

The remainder of the GSA (i.e., the NSA) will be distributed to the Class Participants and the PAGA Settlement Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.25 & 8.1.) The NSA will also be used to calculate estimated each “Individual Settlement Amount” to be paid to the Class Participants as further discussed below. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.24 & 8.1)

The Individual Settlement Amount to be distributed to each Class Participant reflects that participant’s share of the NSA based on the pro rata number of weeks worked by the Class Members during the Class Period, as a proportion of all weeks worked by all Class Members, less any employee taxes or withholdings which Cabell and each Class Participant will be responsible for paying. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.24 & 5.3.) The parties agree that 10 percent of each Individual Settlement Amount constitutes wages, and 90 percent of each Individual Settlement Amount constitutes penalties and interest, for which each Class Participant will be issued appropriate tax forms. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 5.5.) The Individual Settlement Amount does not include any portion of the PAGA Payment. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.24.)

In addition, the portion of the PAGA Payment to be paid to each member of the PAGA Settlement Class will be based on the pro rata number of pay periods worked by each particular PAGA Settlement Class member during the PAGA Period, as a proportion of all pay periods worked by all members of the PAGA Settlement Class. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 5.4.) The PAGA Payment and any payments made to individual members of the PAGA Settlement Class will be treated as payments owing for penalties and interest and not as wages. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 5.5.)

Each Class Member’s workweeks, and the Individual Settlement Amount, will be calculated using the employment and payroll records of West Covina, which the parties presume to be full, complete, and accurate. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 8.9.) West Covina will provide the Settlement Administrator with any information necessary to calculate the number of workweeks for each Class Member and PAGA Settlement Class Member, as well as any other information required to perform calculations required under the Settlement Agreement. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 8.2-8.3.)

A Class Member may dispute the number of workweeks and the Individual Settlement Amount by submitting documentary evidence, such as pay stubs or other written employment records, to the Settlement Administrator within forty-five days of the mailing of the notice further discussed below. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 8.9.) If a dispute cannot be resolved, it will be submitted to the Settlement Administrator for a final, non-appealable decision. (Ibid.)

West Covina will deposit the GSA as a lump sum payment, plus employer-side payroll taxes, to the Settlement Administrator within seven days of the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.17 [definition of “Effective Date”]; 1.21 & 6.2.) If the number of workweeks is greater than 10 percent than the number represented by West Covina, then the GSA shall be increased proportionally for each additional workweek. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 9.2.)

Within fourteen days after the date on which the court enters an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement (the Preliminary Approval Date), West Covina will provide to the Settlement Administrator a database (the Database) containing an updated list of Class Members and members of the PAGA Settlement Class, which will include names, social security numbers, dates of employment, last-known addresses, and phone numbers, and which will be maintained by the parties as confidential. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.33 & 7.2.)

Within twenty-eight days following the Preliminary Approval Date, the Settlement Administrator will determine the number of workweeks worked by each Class Member, populate the data for each Class Member accordingly, and send each Class Member a “Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement” (the Class Notice), a copy of which is attached to the Settlement Agreement as exhibit 1, by first class mail. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.8 & 7.2.) The Class Notice will be accompanied by a “Class Action Settlement Share Form” (the Share Form), a copy of which is attached to the Settlement Agreement as exhibit 2, which identifies the Class Member, the number of workweeks worked by that Class Member, and the estimated amount of the NSA that Class Member can expect to receive. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1.8, 1.40, & 5.1.)

The Class Notice will inform Class Members of their estimated share of the NSA and the number of workweeks they worked during the Class Period, which may be disputed by the Class Members as further described above. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 7.2.) The Settlement Administrator will jointly work with Cabell and West Covina to resolve any dispute in good faith and, to the extent the parties cannot agree over the workweeks to be credited to a Class Member, will make the final decision based on the information presented by the Class Member and West Covina. (Ibid.)

The Settlement Agreement also describes the procedure under which a Class Member may opt out of the Settlement Agreement by submitting a letter to the Settlement Administrator no later than forty-five days after the Class Notice is mailed. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 7.3.) Any request to opt out of the Settlement Agreement must state the Class Member’s name, address, telephone number, and signature, and should also include the following language: “I WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IN THE HENRY FREDY CASTILLO V. WEST COVINA WHOLESALE NURSERY LLC LAWSUIT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I ASK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, I WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM THE CLASS SETTLEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT AND WILL NOT BE RELEASING ANY CLAIMS I MIGHT HAVE.” (Ibid.)

Notwithstanding any request to opt out of the Settlement Agreement, no Class Member shall be excluded from participating in the PAGA Settlement Class. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 7.3.)

The Settlement Agreement further sets forth a procedure under which a Class Member may object to the Settlement Agreement by submitting a written objection to the Settlement Administrator no later than forty-five days after the mailing of the Class Notice, which should also include the case name, case number, and the basis for the objection. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 7.4.) Class Members who object to the Settlement Agreement may also appear at the final approval hearing. (Ibid.) The Settlement Administrator will promptly serve on Class Counsel and counsel for West Covina, copies of any objections or notices of a Class Member’s intent to appear at the final approval hearing. (Ibid.)

Before mailing the Class Notice to the Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will calculate the estimated NSA based on the estimated values provided by West Covina and described above and will recalculate the final NSA based on actual values of the amounts in each category prior to any final distribution. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 8.1.)

Any funds associated with checks which are not cashed within one hundred eighty days will become void, and the Individual Settlement Amount associated with the uncashed check will be remitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384 to the California State Controller for deposit in the Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the individual whose check was uncashed. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 8.8.) West Covina will be deemed to have fulfilled its obligations upon the mailing of a check to a Class Member, regardless of whether that Class Member subsequently negotiates the check. (Ibid.)

The Settlement Agreement includes a release of claims by the Settlement Class. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 11.1.) The claims to be released by the Settlement Class are “those claims arising out of or related to the allegations set forth in the Complaint and/or PAGA notice to the LWDA, which arose during the Class Period” and does not include any other claim other than those specifically pleaded in this action. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.34.)

Cabell also has agreed to release claims arising out of or connected with Cabell’s employment with West Covina. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 11.2.)

March 17, 2025, Cabell declaration:

In his March 17, 2025, declaration, Cabell asserts that he was subject to the same uniform policies and procedures alleged in the operative pleading and discussed in the present motion, and that he believes he was underpaid as a result of West Covina’s implementation of these policies and procedures. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 4.) Cabell further asserts he witnessed that most, if not all, employees with whom Cabell had contact with were subjected to the same conduct as a result of West Covina’s uniform policies and procedures. (Ibid.) For these reasons, Cabell believes that his claims are typical of the claims of other Class Members. (Ibid.)

Cabell states that, by filing this case, he agreed to put the interests of the class ahead of his own, and to actively participate and assume the risks of  serving as the named plaintiff, including as to any reputational harm that may arise from being affiliated with an employment lawsuit and the potential resulting stigma that may result. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 5.) For these reasons, Cabell does not believe that his interests are antagonistic to the interests of the other class members. (Ibid.)

Cabell provided his attorneys with a comprehensive history of his employment with West Covina, and numerous documents relating to that employment, and regularly conferred with his attorneys to discuss the status of the case, to offer input, and to assist in gathering evidence necessary to prosecute the claims. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 6.) Cabell also reviewed documents and pleadings, provided information regarding Cabell’s job duties and daily activities at the job site, and attempted to locate other potential witnesses. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 7.) Cabell provided detailed information about West Covina’s timekeeping, schedule, and payroll practices, educated his attorneys on the intricacies and details of West Covina’s business, and remained available to assist during settlement negotiations. (Cabell Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Cabell has reviewed the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and states that his attorneys have explained the specifics of how the settlement will work. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 8.) Cabell accepted the settlement only after spending enough time to evaluate the fairness of the proposed outcome. (Ibid.) Cabell states that, based on his counsels’ evaluations and recommendations, and Cabell’s own review, Cabell believes the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and adequately compensates class members. (Ibid.)

Cabell asserts that he agreed to participate in this case with no guarantee of personal benefit, and that the case involved risks to Cabell including the potential of having to pay West Covina’s costs if Cabell did not prevail. (Cabell Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) Cabell notes that he has agreed to a general release of all claims, which is broader than the release of claims that the members of the class will agree to if they wish to participate in the settlement. (Cabell Decl., ¶ 10.)

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).)

The Settlement Agreement and the proposed Class Notice are each submitted with the motion, and Cabell has lodged a proposed order with the court. For these reasons, the court finds that the present motion is procedurally appropriate and compliant.

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions “when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) “Class certification requires proof (1) of a sufficiently numerous, ascertainable class, (2) of a well-defined community of interest, and (3) that certification will provide substantial benefits to litigants and the courts, i.e., that proceeding as a class is superior to other methods. [Citation.]” (Fireside Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1069, 1089.)

To determine whether a class is ascertainable, the court examines “(1) the class definition, (2) the size of the class, and (3) the means available for identifying class members. [Citation.]” (Reyes v. San Diego County Bd. of Supervisors (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1271.) “A related inquiry is manageability of the proposed class[.]” (Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 836, 849.) “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470.) “The burden is on the party seeking certification to establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” (Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913.)

Where a class action settles before class certification, “certification and settlement approval occur simultaneously.” (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 93 (Luckey).) After a preliminary settlement hearing, the court makes “an order approving or denying certification of a provisional settlement class….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(d).)

“Because a court evaluating certification of a class action that settled prior to certification is considering certification only in the context of settlement, the court’s evaluation of the certification issues is somewhat different from its consideration of certification issues when the class action has not yet settled. In some ways, the court’s review of certification of a settlement-only class is lessened; as no trial is anticipated in a settlement-only class case, ‘the case management issues inherent in the ascertainable class determination need not be confronted.’ [Citation.] However, other certification issues, ‘those designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions’ require heightened scrutiny in the settlement-only class context ‘for a court asked to certify a settlement class will lack the opportunity, present when a case is litigated, to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold.’ [Citation.]” (Luckey, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at pp. 93-94.) To protect absent class members whose rights may not have been considered by the settling parties, and to ensure the absence of fraud and collusion, heightened scrutiny is required if there has been no adversary certification. (Ibid.)

Available information and evidence further detailed above shows that the proposed Settlement Class consists of an estimated 359 individuals, as ascertained from the payroll records of West Covina. (See, e.g., Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 7.4 & Class Notice [Exh. 1 to Exh. A].) The information further discussed above also indicates that the members of the Settlement Class, including Cabell, were subject to the same purported policies or practices of West Covina alleged in this action, which resulted in a purported failure of West Covina to provide compliant meal periods, to pay minimum wages, and to furnish accurate wage statements, among other things. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 25, 29, 37.)

Cabell has, for present purposes, presented evidence sufficient to show that there exists a numerous, ascertainable class with a well-defined community of interest consisting of approximately 359 employees of West Covina who were purportedly subject to the same meal break violations, and unlawful employment policies and practices with respect to the payment of wages and the furnishing of accurate wage statements. There also appears to be sufficient and reliable means available to identify class members from the payroll records of West Covina. Further, based on information appearing in the Cabell declaration described above, Cabell appears to have claims typical of, and appears to be able to adequately represent, the class. For these reasons, there is reasonable support for provisional certification of the Settlement Class.

To protect the rights of class members including the named plaintiff, the court must also determine if the proposed class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800–1801 (Dunk).) In making this determination, the court considers “the strength of [plaintiff’s] 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 the 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.” (Id. at p. 1801.) This inquiry is limited “ ‘to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Moreover, “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.” (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) “Public policy generally favors the compromise of complex class action litigation.” (In re Microsoft I-V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 723, fn. 14.)

As to the settlement of claims alleged under PAGA, “while PAGA 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 (Moniz); Lab. Code, § 2699.) The court’s review and approval of a PAGA settlement acts as a “safeguard” to ensure the negotiated resolution is fair and protects the interests of the public and the LWDA in maximizing the enforcement of state labor laws in consideration of PAGA’s purposes and policies. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 76-77.) Factors useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement include “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….” (Id. at p. 77.)

Information appearing in the Melmed and Cabell declarations show that Cabell engaged substantial investigations and discovery in this action, in response to which West Covina ostensibly providing relevant data and records to permit Cabell to make the evaluations and analysis further described above. (Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 53-54.) Cabell has also presented evidence showing that at least $200,666.67 will be available to compensate the Class Members, the LWDA, and the Aggrieved Employees or PAGA Settlement Class.

To evaluate the adequacy of the settlement, counsel for Cabell has accounted for potential difficulties associated with achieving class certification and prevailing on the merits of the claims alleged in this action, in particular as to whether West Covina had a practice of interrupting or “shorting” meal breaks, whether noncompliant meal periods were recorded, whether West Covina offered its employees permissive meal periods, whether missed meal periods were sporadic, whether there exists evidence of missed rest breaks, whether any employees were injured by any inaccuracies appearing in employee wage statements, and whether West Covina’s good faith defense has merit. (See, e.g., Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 27-28, 31, 34 & 36.)

The Settlement Agreement appears to be the product of an adversarial, arms-length mediation and negotiations. The claims released by the Class Members are limited to those which arise out of or relate to the allegations of the FAC and the PAGA notice provided to the LWDA, and expressly provides that no other claims are released including those arising under state or federal discrimination statutes, or in connection with workers compensation, unemployment, or disability benefits. (Melmed Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.34.)

Cabell has also presented evidence of the risks and uncertainties associated with continued litigation of this action including with respect to the defenses asserted by West Covina, and potential difficulties in certifying the class. These risks appear to be substantial.

A copy of the proposed settlement must be provided to the LWDA at the same time it is submitted to the court. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) Available information demonstrates that Cabell submitted a copy of the Settlement Agreement to the LWDA on August 28, 2024. (Melmed Decl., Exh. E.) There is no information to suggest that the LWDA has indicated that it objects to the Settlement Agreement or intends to intervene in this action.

Based on the information provided in the Melmed declaration, Class Counsel appear to have substantial experience with wage and hour and PAGA matters. (See Melmed Decl., ¶¶ 8-13.) Class Counsel believes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Based on the above and the evidence and information presented in the moving papers, it appears to the court that, in light of known facts and circumstances, the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, including members of the PAGA Settlement Class. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Settlement Agreement is the product of collusion.

The court has reviewed the proposed Class Notice, which is easy to understand, apprises Class Members of the pendency of and the claims and defenses asserted in the present action, explains the rights and obligations of the Class Members in connection with the proposed settlement, notifies Class Members of their right and opportunity to opt out or present objections to the Settlement Agreement, and explains the scope of the claims to be released by the Class Members should they chose to participate in the settlement. Further, the Share Form is easy to understand, apprises the Class Member of the number of workweeks utilized to calculate that members’ allocated portion of the NSA, and explains the manner in which the Class Member may dispute the number of workweeks. For these reasons, the court finds that the proposed Class Notice complies with due process. (Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 694-695.)

Based on the evidence and information presented by Cabell and further discussed above, the court finds that the Settlement Agreement is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the putative class. The court further finds that the notice plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement constitutes sufficient notice to the Class Members of the present action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the date and location of the final approval hearing.

For all reasons further discussed above, the court determines that the Settlement Agreement is entitled to preliminary approval, that the Settlement Class should be provisionally certified, that Class Counsel should be appointed as counsel for the settlement class, that Cabell should be appointed as class representative for settlement purposes, that Phoenix should be appointed as the settlement administrator, and that the notice to the class and settlement administration deadlines should be approved as set forth in the motion. Accordingly, the court will grant the present motion.

The court’s order must include “the time, date, and place of the final approval hearing; the notice to be given to the class; and any other matters deemed necessary for the proper conduct of a settlement hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(e).) The court will determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs requested by Class Counsel, the Incentive Award, and the administrative expenses upon noticed motion at the final settlement hearing. Counsel shall appear at the hearing on the present motion and be prepared to discuss scheduling for the final settlement hearing and any other matters remaining at this time.