Henry Fredy Castillo Cabel vs West Covina Wholesale Nursery LLC

Case Number

23CV03928

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/06/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Approval re Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling

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

Case No. 23CV03928

           

Hearing Date: October 6, 2025                                                           

HEARING:              Motion For Final 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 final approval of class action and PAGA settlement is continued to November 3, 2025. On or before October 20, 2025, plaintiff shall submit a supplemental declaration of Kevin Lee addressing the matters described herein.

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) which added 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 ordered that motion off-calendar based on the motion failing to comply with the California Rules of Court.

On February 14 and March 17, 2025, Cabell filed, respectively, an unopposed subsequent and amended motion (collectively, the preliminary approval motion) for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement.

The preliminary approval motion requested an order: (1) certifying a settlement class for purposes of settlement only pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.769; (2) preliminarily appointing Cabell as the class representative for purposes of settlement; (3) appointing Cabell’s counsel Jonathan Melmed (Melmed) and Maria Burciaga of Melmed Law Group P.C., as class counsel for purposes of settlement; (4) preliminarily approving a Settlement Agreement and Release of Class Action (the Settlement Agreement), including a payment by West Covina of a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $400,000 (the GSA), as fair, adequate, and reasonable; (5) preliminarily approving payment of attorney fees and costs in an amount not to exceed one-third of the GSA (up to $133,333.33), plus necessary litigation costs not to exceed $23,000; (6) preliminarily approving an incentive payment in the amount of $10,000 from the GSA to Cabell as class representative; (7) appointing Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions (Phoenix) as the settlement administrator and preliminarily approving the payment of settlement administration costs to Phoenix, estimated to not exceed $8,000; (8) preliminarily approving an allocation from the GSA of $25,000 for penalties pursuant to PAGA, of which 75 percent or $18,750 would be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (the LWDA), and 25 percent or $6,250 would be payable to aggrieved employees; (9) approving a proposed class notice to be disseminated to class members as provided in the Settlement Agreement; (10) directing Phoenix to mail the class notice to the proposed class; (11) approving proposed deadlines for the notice and administration process as reflected in the Settlement Agreement; and (12) setting a date for a final fairness or approval hearing.

The preliminary approval motion was supported by separately filed declarations of Cabell and Melmed.

After a hearing held on June 16, 2025, the court entered an order (the Preliminary Approval Order) granting 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 payment of the non-reversionary GSA in the amount of $400,000 by West Covina, to settle and release all claims asserted by Cabell on behalf of the “Settlement Class” which 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 (the Class Period). The Settlement Class also includes a “PAGA Settlement Class” which is comprised of 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 the court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement (the PAGA Period).

The court appointed Phoenix to serve as the settlement administrator; Megan E. Ross and Hannah Becker of Melmed Law Group P.C. as “Class Counsel” for the Settlement Class; and Cabell as the “Class Representative”. 

Evidence and information presented in the preliminary approval motion showed that the GSA includes the following amounts, which will be deducted from the GSA to determine the Net Settlement Amount or “NSA” available for distribution to the Settlement Class: (1) an amount not to exceed $8,000, to be paid to Phoenix for costs and expenses associated with administering the settlement; (2) an amount not to exceed $133,333.33 to be paid to Class Counsel for attorney’s fees; (3) an amount not to exceed $23,000 to be paid to Class Counsel for litigation costs and expenses; (4) an “Incentive Award” of $10,000 to be paid to Cabell as the Class Representative; and (5) a “PAGA Payment” in the amount of $25,000, of which $18,750 will be paid to the LWDA and $6,250 will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Class. The court further noted that the PAGA Payment reflects the amount of civil penalties under PAGA that the parties agree constitutes a reasonable settlement of the PAGA claims asserted in this action.

The evidence and information presented by Cabell also showed that the NSA will be distributed to the Settlement Class after calculating each estimated “Individual Settlement Amount” to be paid to each member of the Settlement Class who does not timely request exclusion from the Settlement Agreement.

The preliminary approval motion was also sufficient to show the existence of a numerous, ascertainable class with a well-defined community of interest consisting of at approximately 359 current or former 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 appeared to be sufficient and reliable means available to identify class members from the payroll records of West Covina. Based on information appearing in the Cabell declaration submitted in support of the motion, Cabell appeared to have claims typical of, and to be able to adequately represent, the Settlement Class. For these reasons, the court determined that there exists reasonable support for provisional certification of the Settlement Class.

Cabell also presented evidence and information to show that West Covina’s realistic exposure to the claims alleged in this action totals $1,242,659.08. This evidence and information also showed that West Covina’s total realistic maximum exposure to civil penalties under PAGA is $73,965.

The court reviewed the proposed “Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement” (the Class Notice) submitted with the preliminary approval motion, which was accompanied by a “Class Action Settlement Share Form” (the Share Form) identifying each member of the Settlement Class (collectively, Class Members and individually, Class Member), the number of workweeks worked by each Class Member, and the estimated amount of the NSA that each member could expect to receive.

The court found the Class Notice easy to understand, and sufficient to apprise and notify each Class Member of the pendency of and the claims and defenses asserted in the present action, each member’s rights and obligations in connection with the proposed Settlement Agreement, the right and opportunity to opt out or present objections to the Settlement Agreement, and the scope of the claims to be released by should a Class Member chose to participate in the settlement. The court also found the Share Form easy to understand, sufficient to apprise each Class Member of the number of workweeks utilized to calculate that that member’s allocated portion of the NSA, and sufficient to explain the manner in which a Class Member may dispute their number of workweeks. For these reasons, the court found that the Class Notice complied with due process.

The preliminary approval motion also demonstrated that Cabell submitted a copy of the Settlement Agreement to the LWDA on August 28, 2024. There was no information to suggest that the LWDA has indicated that it objects to the Settlement Agreement or intends to intervene in this action.

As further discussed in the Preliminary Approval Order, the court determined that the Settlement Agreement was 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 Class Notice and settlement administration deadlines should be approved as set forth in the preliminary approval motion. For these and all further reasons discussed in that order, the court granted the preliminary approval motion.

The court scheduled a hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement on October 6, 2025, and stated that it will determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs, the Incentive Award, and administrative expenses upon noticed motion.

On September 12, 2025, Cabell filed a motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. In the present motion, Cabell requests an order: (1) finally certifying the class as defined in the Settlement Agreement; (2) finally appointing Cabell as the Class Representative for purposes of settlement; (3) finally appointing Melmed and Maria Burciaga, Esq., of Melmed Law Group P.C. as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement; (4) finding that notice of the Settlement Agreement was properly provided to the class in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order; (5) approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including the allocation for attorneys’ fees and costs, settlement administration expenses, and payments pursuant to PAGA; (6) binding all Class Participants to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including as to the releases specified in that agreement; and (7) retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

The present motion, which is unopposed, is supported by a declaration of Kevin Lee (Lee), who is a Case Manager with Phoenix (Lee Decl., ¶ 1), and declarations of Cabell and Melmed.

Analysis:

“[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; accord, Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245 [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].)

With respect to the fourth element described above, information appearing in the Lee declaration, which was executed on September 10, 2025, shows that the deadline for Class Members to request exclusion from or to object to the Settlement Agreement, and to dispute the number of work weeks appearing in a Class Notice, was September 23, 2025. (Lee Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) Though Lee asserts that Phoenix received no requests for exclusions, objections, or workweek disputes from Class Members, the deadline for Class Members to raise these matters had not yet passed. For these same reasons, the basis for Lee’s statement that there have been no timely requests for exclusion is also unclear. (See Lee Decl., ¶ 11.)

The court’s records also do not reflect that plaintiff filed an updated declaration of Lee after the deadline stated above expired.

For all reasons discussed above, as the deadline for Class Members to request exclusion from or object to the Settlement Agreement had not passed at the time Lee executed the declaration described above, there is insufficient information to permit the court to determine whether a presumption of fairness exists. For these reasons, the court will continue the present motion and require Cabell to submit a supplemental declaration of Lee addressing the matters described herein.