Tentative Ruling: Ashael Resendiz vs Canyon Restaurant LTD LP et al
Case Number
24CV00190
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 05/11/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
CMC; Motion: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement re Approval of Settlement
Tentative Ruling
Ashael Resendiz v. Canyon Restaurant, Ltd., L.P.
Case No. 24CV00190
Hearing Date: May 11, 2026
HEARING: Motion of Plaintiff for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Ashael Resendiz: Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
For Defendants Canyon Restaurant, Ltd., L.P., Reunion Boat Canyon, L.P., Reunion Santa Barbara, LLC, Reunion Dos Lagos, Inc., and Scott McIntosh: Landon R. Schwob, Jacob P. Waschak, Ani Boyadjian, Fisher & Phillips LLP
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is granted.
The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted with the motion and intends on signing the same. The relevant terms include:
- Preliminary approval of the settlement set forth in the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement is granted;
- The proposed settlement class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only;
- Plaintiff Ashael Resendiz is provisionally appointed as the representative of the settlement class;
- Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Aparajit Bhowmik, Nicholas J. De Blouw, Jeffrey S. Herman, Sergio J. Puche, and Trevor G. Moran of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP are appointed as class counsel;
- Distribution of the proposed notice of class action settlement to the settlement class is approved;
- Apex Class Action LLC is appointed as the third-party settlement administrator;
- A hearing on Final Approval of Settlement is set for October 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 5.
- All documents related to the final approval, fees, costs, and enhancement award, shall be filed no later than 16 court days prior to the final approval hearing date.
Background:
On January 16, 2024, plaintiff Ashael Resendiz (Resendiz) filed a complaint alleging one cause of action for civil penalties under Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA). In the complaint, Resendiz asserts that he brings the complaint on behalf of the State of California with respect to herself and all employees or individuals who are or previously were employed by or staffed with defendant Canyon Restaurant Ltd., L.P. (Canyon) in California as non-exempt employees from September 27, 2022. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 7-8 & 36.) Resendiz alleges in the complaint that Canyon failed to properly record and provide meal and rest periods, pay minimum wages, pay overtime and sick time wages, provide reimbursement for required business expenses, timely provide wages when due including upon termination, provide complete and accurate wage statements, and provide suitable seating to the aggrieved employees. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-31 & 38.)
On March 1, 2024, Canyon filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-six affirmative defenses.
On May 31, 2024, Resendiz filed three amendments to the complaint substituting Reunion Boat Canyon, L.P., Reunion Santa Barbara, LLC, Reunion Dos Lagos, Inc. (collectively, the Reunion Defendants), and Scott McIntosh (McIntosh) for, respectively, fictitiously named defendants designated as Does 1 through 4.
On July 17, 2024, Resendiz filed a request for dismissal of the non-representative or individual PAGA claim alleged in the complaint, without prejudice.
On July 24, 2024, the Court entered an order dismissing without prejudice any claim alleged by Resendiz in the complaint in his individual capacity.
On January 16, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order giving Resendiz leave to file a first amended class and representative action complaint.
On February 18, 2026, Resendiz filed his operative first amended class and representative action complaint against Canyon, the Reunion Defendants, and McIntosh for: (1) Unfair Competition in Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code section 510; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code section 226; (7) Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Labor Code section 2802; (8) Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Labor Code section 201, 202, and 203; (9) Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code sections 201-203, 233, and 246; and (10) Civil Penalties for Violations of the Labor Code.
The parties reached a settlement agreement as the result of mediation and now Resendiz moves for preliminary approval of the class settlement. The motion is unopposed.
Analysis:
The purpose of the preliminary approval hearing is to determine whether the settlement is within the range of reasonableness for preliminary approval and to approve or deny certification of a provisional settlement class. A full inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement occurs at the final approval hearing. (Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (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.)
A PAGA action is a type of qui tam action, in which a private party is authorized to bring an action to recover a penalty on behalf of the government and receive part of the recovery as compensation. (Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 753.) In doing so, the employee acts as proxy for the state labor law enforcement agency; the proceeding is designed to protect the public, not to benefit private parties. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The dispute is between the employer and the state. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81.) The purpose of PAGA is not to recover damages, restitution, or redress the employees’ injuries, but to recover civil penalties to remediate present violations and deter future ones. (Id. at p. 86.) While a PAGA case is representative in nature, it is not a class action and may be brought without the procedural requirements involved in class actions.
Prior to January 1, 2026, Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (i) mandated that PAGA civil penalties be allocated 75% to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the code, and 25% to the aggrieved employees. Section 2699(l)(2) required that the superior court review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement, pursuant to that part of the code. The code section, as was effective prior to January 1, 2026, is applicable to this action because the action was filed prior to June 19, 2024, and the PAGA Notice was served on September 27, 2023. (see Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (v).)
On November 18, 2025, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with Louis Marlin and agreed to settlement terms. (Nordrehaug decl., ¶ 5.) Pursuant to the executed agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Nordrehaug declaration, the parties agreed:
The Class Period, PAGA Period, and “Release Period” means the period from September 27, 2022, and ending on January 18, 2026. (Agreement, ¶ 1.39.) “Aggrieved Employees” means all individuals who are or previously were employed by defendants in California and classified as a non-exempt employee at any time during the Release Period. (Id. at ¶ 1.4.)The “Class” means all individuals who are or previously were employed by defendants in California and classified as a non-exempt employee at any time during the Release Period. (Id. at ¶ 1.5.) The Class consists of approximately 926 Class Members who collectively worked a total of 26,215 pay periods, and approximately 926 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 26,215 pay periods. (Id. at ¶ 4.1.) (Note: The Nordrehaug declaration and the Waschak declaration, submitted in support of the motion, indicated that there are 990 employees who worked approximately 27,107 pay periods.)
The non-revisionary gross settlement amount is $725,000.00 and is inclusive of payments to the class, class counsels’ fees, class counsels’ costs, settlement administration costs, incentive payments to plaintiffs, and payment of PAGA penalties to be paid to the LWDA. (Agreement, ¶ 3.1.)
The parties agreed to the following payments from the gross settlement amount:
- A Class Service Representative Service Payment to Resendiz of $15,000.00;
- Class Counsel Fees of not more than one-third of the amount, which is currently estimated to be $241,666.00, and Class Counsel Litigation Expenses of not more than $35,000.00;
- Administration Expenses Payment not to exceed $12,622.00 to Apex Class Action LLC (Apex);
- PAGA penalties in the amount of $15,000.00 to be paid 75 percent to the LWDA and 25 percent to the individual PAGA payments.
- Apex will calculate individual PAGA payments by dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employee’s 25 percent share of PAGA penalties by the total number of pay periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the release period and multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s pay periods. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2.)
Twenty percent of each participating class member’s individual class payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims, which are subject to tax withholding and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2 (e)i.) Eighty percent of each participating class member’s individual class payment will be allocated to settlement of claims for non-wages, expense reimbursement, interest, and penalties, which are not subject to wage withholdings and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms, and participating class members will assume full responsibility and liability for any employee taxes owed on those payments. (Ibid.)
Proposed Class Counsel, Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Aparajit Bhowmik, Nicholas J. De Blouw, Jeffrey S. Herman, Sergio J. Puche, and Trevor G. Moran of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, seek preliminary approval to request attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the gross settlement amount, which is currently estimated to be $241,666, plus costs not to exceed $35,000.00. In the event the court awards class counsel less than this requested amount, the difference shall become part of the net settlement amount and shall be distributed to participating class members as part of their individual settlement awards.
For settlement purposes only, the parties agree to the designation of Resendiz as the class representative and request a class representative service award of $15,000.00.
The parties agree that Apex Class Action (“Apex”) shall be the settlement administrator and shall paid settlement administration costs, not to exceed $12,622.00, to be paid from the gross settlement amount. (Note: The declaration of Apex’s CEO, Sean Hartranft, at paragraph 7, declares that the management of the settlement will not exceed $11,475.00.)
Not later than 15 days after the court grants preliminary approval of the settlement, defendants will deliver the Class Data to Apex, which Apex will maintain in confidence and only use for purposes of the settlement. (Agreement, ¶ 4.2.) Defendants have a continuing duty to immediately notify class counsel if they discover that the Class Data omitted class member identifying information and to provide corrected or updated data as soon as reasonably feasible. (Ibid.)
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, generally, that it is within the range of acceptable settlements.
Substantial investigation and discovery was conducted, giving rise to an informed settlement considering the risks of further litigating the action through trial. The case involves experienced class counsel, who believe the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members. The settlement was achieved through extensive arms-length negotiations and was not collusive.
The proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval is attached as Exhibit A to the agreement.
“If the court has certified the action as a class action, notice of the final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the court. The notice must contain an explanation of the proposed settlement and procedures for class members to follow in filing written objections to it and in arranging to appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections to the proposed settlement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(f).)
“ ‘ “The principal purpose of notice to the class is the protection of the integrity of the class action process. . ..” ’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘The notice ‘ “ ‘must fairly apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed compromise and of the options open to the dissenting class members.’ ” ’ ” [Citation.] A class action settlement notice should present information neutrally, simply, and understandably. The notice should allow class members to evaluate a proposed settlement. Notice should describe the formula or plan for computing individual settlement class member recoveries.” (Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.)
The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval is sufficient and complies with all applicable requirements.
The motion asks the court for an order provisionally certifying the settlement class. The class is ascertainable from defendants’ records and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class, and there is a well-defined community of interest among its members with respect to the subject matter of the litigation.
It appears to the court that the claims of the class representative are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class, and that he is positioned to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members. It also appears to the court that proposed class counsel is experienced and qualified in wage and hour class litigation and will properly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class.
The court further finds that the PAGA claim class is appropriate and the terms of the PAGA settlement are, generally, fair and reasonable.