Tentative Ruling: Angel Nava Mora vs Institution Ale Company et al
Case Number
24CV01401
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/23/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
CMC; Motion: Approval
Tentative Ruling
Mora v. Institution Ale Co.
Case No. 24CV01401
Hearing Date: March 23, 2026
HEARING: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Angel Nava Mora: Alvin B. Lindsay, Enoch Kim, Antonia McKee, D.Law, Inc.
For Defendant Institution Ale Company: Chandra A. Beaton, Benjamin F. Fraser, LightGabler LLP
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Angel Nava Mora’s motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement is continued to May 11, 2026. Plaintiff shall, on or before April 27, 2026, file and serve a supplemental brief and declaration attaching an amended agreement that cures the deficiencies described herein.
Background:
On March 12, 2024, plaintiff Angel Nava Mora (Mora or Plaintiff) filed a class action complaint against defendant Institution Ale Company (Defendant), setting forth twelve causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages and for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code section 510; (3) meal period liability, Labor Code section 226.7; (4) rest break liability, Labor Code section 226.7; (5) failure to pay reporting time under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11050; (6) violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a); (7) violation of Labor Code section 221; (8) violation of Labor Code section 204; (9) violation of Labor Code section 203; (10) failure to maintain records under Labor Code sections 1174 and 1174.5; (11) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses under Labor Code section 2802; and (12) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
On August 5, 2024, Mora filed his first amended complaint (FAC) adding a thirteenth cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Labor Code section 2698.
As alleged in the FAC:
Defendant operates at least two brewery and restaurant facilities in California, including a Santa Barbara location. (FAC, ¶ 4.) Mora worked as a food services employee and cook at Defendant’s Santa Barbara location. (FAC, ¶ 2.) Mora and other members of the putative class were employed by Defendant in non-exempt, hourly employee positions related to providing food and beverage services to Defendant’s customers. (Ibid.) The putative class is defined in the FAC as: “All individuals employed by Defendants at any time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as determined by the Court (‘the Class Period’), and who have been employed as non-exempt, hourly employees within the State of California.” (Id., ¶ 45.)
Mora and the putative class members were either not paid by Defendant for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates, including for meal period and rest break premium payments. (FAC, ¶ 8.) Defendant failed to pay Mora and the putative class members all wages due and owing, including by miscalculating wages owed and by requiring off-the-clock work, failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failing to furnish accurate wage statements and timely pay all wages owed, all in violation of the Labor Code. (Ibid.)
On several occasions, Mora was compelled to work after clocking out at the end of his shifts to take out the trash to the dumpster. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Because the restaurant facilities were about to close and Mora would have no way to access the
electronic time clock after the restaurant closed, Mora was instructed to clock out and take the trash out to the dumpster. (Ibid.) Additionally, Mora and the putative class members were required to work or otherwise remain under Defendant’s control after their shifts ended. (Ibid.)
Meal periods and rest breaks were routinely interrupted, shortened, or not provided at all due to pressing work demands and Defendant’s unlawful timekeeping practices, resulting in additional off the clock work. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Defendant required that employees clock in and out for their meal periods on the electronic time
clock. (Ibid.) Employees had to contend with a timekeeping system that did not permit them to clock in from a meal period before thirty minutes had passed, even when they were actually working. (Ibid.) Mora was frequently compelled to cut his rest breaks and meal periods short to assist with an influx of customers. (Ibid.)
Mora and the putative class members were not properly paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendant, including when working more than eight hours in a day or more than forty hours in a week. (FAC, ¶ 19.)
On February 25, 2025, the parties informed the court via stipulation that the parties reached a resolution of this action in principal at mediation and would be negotiating a long-form agreement.
On December 5, 2025, Mora filed this motion for preliminary approval of a class and PAGA settlement. This motion is unopposed.
Analysis:
(1) Procedures for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
“Rule 3.769 of the California Rules of Court (CRC) sets forth the procedures for settlement of class actions in California. [Citation.] A two-step process is required. First, the court preliminarily approves the settlement and the class members are notified as directed by the court. [Citation.] ‘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.’ [Citation.] Second, the court conducts a final approval hearing to inquire into the fairness of the proposed settlement. [Citation.] If the court approves the settlement, a judgment is entered with provision for continued jurisdiction for the enforcement of the judgment. [Citation.]” (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118.)
“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, subd. (c).) “The court may make an order approving or denying certification of a provisional settlement class after the preliminary settlement hearing.” (Id., subd. (d).) “If the court grants preliminary approval, its 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.” (Id., subd. (e).) A full inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement occurs at the final approval hearing. (Id., subd. (g).)
(2) Preliminary Evaluation of Class Action Settlement
“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. [Citation.] It should consider relevant factors, such as 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 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. [Citation.] The list of factors is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case. Due regard should be given to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties. The inquiry ‘must be 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.’ ” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “[A] 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.” (Id. at p. 1802.)
Here, the putative class consists of 441 current and former non-exempt California employees who worked for Defendant during the class period from March 12, 2020, through January 13, 2025. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1 at § 1.11.) The “Gross Settlement Amount” is $335,000, without reversion. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. 1 at §§ 1.20, 3.1.) Mora receives a service award of no more than $10,000. (Id., Ex. 1 at § 3.2.1.) Plaintiff’s counsel receives attorney fees of no more than one-third of the gross settlement amount, or $111,666.67. (Id., § 3.2.2.) Plaintiff’s counsel receives reimbursement of litigation costs of no more than $25,000. (Ibid.) The settlement administrator receives administration costs of no more than $7,490. (Id., § 3.2.3.) $20,000 is allocated to PAGA penalties discussed separately in more detail below. (Id., § 1.33.)
Assuming approval of the maximum amounts of each category in the proposed settlement, the estimated “Net Settlement Amount” is the Gross Settlement Amount of $335,000, less the $10,000 service award to Mora, less $111,666.67 in attorney fees, less $25,000 in litigation costs, less $7,490 in administrator costs, and less $20,000 in PAGA penalties. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 1.26.) Based on these assumptions and assuming 441 participating class members, the estimated Net Settlement Amount for distribution to members is $160,843.33 or, on average, an estimated $364.72 gross payment per member. (Id., ¶ 12.) A participating class member’s individual payment is calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of workweeks worked by all participating members during the class period and (b) multiplying the result by the number of that member’s workweeks during the class period. (Id., Ex. 1 at § 3.2.4.)
In exchange for these payments, the participating class members would release “any and all wage and hour claims, rights, demands, debts, liabilities, causes of action, primary rights, or claims for relief arising out of or related to work performed by Settlement Class Members during the Class Period that: 1) are alleged, were alleged, could have been alleged in the complaints in the Action (including previously filed complaints in the Action); or 2) arise out of, are comprised of, and/or are related to the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the complaints in the Action ….” (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 5.2.) Mora, as the named plaintiff, would generally release all claims against the released parties including a waiver of unknown claims under Civil Code section 1542. (Id., at § 5.1.)
The released parties are defined as: “Defendant Institution Ale Company and its current or former officers, partners, directors, shareholders, owners, investors, assigns, attorneys, insurers, agents, independent contractors, employees, joint employers, staffing companies, labor contractors, predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint employers, related entities or other representatives of any kind, and related parties that have been asserted or could have been asserted based on the allegations in the PAGA notice dated March 12, 2024, Complaint filed March 12, 2024, and First Amended Complaint filed August 5, 2024.” (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 1.39.)
Preliminarily evaluating the proposed settlement, as estimated by plaintiff’s counsel, the overtime claims were discounted by a factor of 20% from the estimated total exposure, the meal period and rest break claims were discounted by a factor of 50%, the wage statement claims were discounted by a factor of 50%, and the sick pay, vacation pay, and final pay upon separation claims were discounted by a factor of 80%. (Ibid.) The settlement approach appears reasonable given the legal and factual hurdles for each set of claims, the benefits of early settlement, and the reality that a disputed certification motion might not be fully successful. (Ibid.) It appears counsel for plaintiff performed an adequate factual and legal investigation. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) The parties appear to have engaged in arm’s length settlement negotiations before an experienced mediator. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.) The settlement amount appears reasonable in light of the potential liability and likelihood of success on the merits. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 41-64.) The costs and risks of maintaining a class action of this nature through trial would be significant in comparison to the apparent amount of unpaid wages and other alleged violations. (Id., ¶¶ 21-39, 41-64.) Plaintiff’s counsel appears qualified with experience in this area of law. (Id., ¶¶ 72-79.) The proposed class administrator, Apex Class Action LLC, also appears qualified. (Southerland Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) The requested attorney’s fees are within the range of approval, typically between 25% and 33% of the gross settlement. (Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557, fn 13.) The court will evaluate these proposed fees and other aspects of the proposed settlement in more detail at the final approval stage.
Having read the motion, the memoranda and the declarations, the proposed class settlement appears within the range for possible approval. The settlement does not appear to be the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties. Subject to the court’s concerns about the scope of releases discussed below, Mora has met his burden to establish that, for purposes of preliminary approval, the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the putative class.
(3) Provisional Settlement Class
“The court may make an order approving or denying certification of a provisional settlement class after the preliminary settlement hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (d).) 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.)
For purposes of the proposed settlement class, Mora’s claims appear typical of those of the putative class and he appears to be an adequate representative. (Kim Decl., ¶ 17; Mora Decl., ¶¶ 4-20.) Mora’s claims appear to arise from the same course of conduct that give rise to the claims of other putative class members. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 17, 21-39, 41-64; Mora Decl., ¶¶ 4-6, 13; FAC, ¶¶ 8-43.) Plaintiff’s counsel appears to be an adequate counsel based on their experience and skills. (Id., ¶¶ 18, 72-79.) For purposes of settlement, there appears to be a well-defined community of interests community and a class action appears to be the superior method to resolve the issues presented in this action. (Kim Decl., ¶ 19.) The parties have identified 441 putative class members ostensibly subjected to the same policies and practices, based on the same legal standards. (Id., ¶¶ 15-16.) The circumstances of this action are typical of wage and hour cases that are settled via the class action process. Mora has met his burden to establish the requirements for certification of settlement class.
(4) Preliminary Evaluation of PAGA Settlement
PAGA is set forth in Labor Code sections 2698 through 2699.8. 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 (Kim).) “Of the civil penalties recovered, 75 percent goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency [LWDA], leaving the remaining 25 percent for the ‘aggrieved employees.’ ” (Id.) Although this allocation has been changed by amendment, the 75/25 allocation still applies to this action since the PAGA notice was submitted on March 12, 2024. (See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. v; FAC, ¶ 151.) 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. (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 86.) While a PAGA action is representative in nature, it is not a class action. (Id.) “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the [LWDA] at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).)
Here, the PAGA period is from June 1, 2023, to January 13, 2025. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 1.30.) A PAGA member includes all persons who currently or formerly worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California during this PAGA period. (Id., § 1.31.) The PAGA penalties under the settlement are $20,000 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, allocated 25% to PAGA members ($5,000.00) and 75% to the LWDA ($15,000.00). (Id., § 1.33.) The settling members who worked during the PAGA period would release “any and all wage and hour claims, rights, demands, debts, liabilities, causes of action, primary rights, or claims for civil penalties arising out of or related to work performed by PAGA Members for any acts or omissions during the PAGA Period that: 1) are alleged or were alleged, or could have been alleged in the complaint in the Action (including any previously filed complaint in the Action) or any PAGA administrative exhaustion/notice letter (including any previously submitted administrative exhaustion/notice letter); or 2) arise out of, are comprised of, and/or are related to the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the complaints in the Action ….” (Id., § 5.3.) The PAGA settlement is contingent on the preliminary approval of “all material aspects” of the settlement, including the class action portion of the settlement. (Id., § 6.3.) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the proposed settlement to the LWDA concurrently with the filing of this motion. (Id., ¶ 40.)
The penalties at issue in this action carry a potential $100 penalty for each aggrieved employee per pay period. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (f)(2)(A).) However, the court has discretion to “award a lesser amount than the maximum civil penalty amount specified by this part … if, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, to do otherwise would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (e)(2).) Plaintiff’s counsel estimated Defendant’s total exposure on the PAGA claim at approximately $280,600.00 (2,806 PAGA pay periods x $100). (Kim Decl., ¶ 61.) The potential PAGA penalties substantially overlap with the violations at issue in the proposed class settlement. Under these circumstances, the court finds that the purposes of PAGA to remediate prior violations and deter future ones is largely achieved by the proposed class settlement. Subject to the court’s concerns about the scope of the release discussed below, the proposed allocation of $20,000 to the PAGA penalties as part of the overall settlement structure appears reasonable, fair, and adequate.
(5) The Scope of the Releases
The court has concerns about the scope of the releases in the settlement. The releases could be read to reach third parties and matters outside the context of the wage and hour claims at issue in this action. The court understands that Defendant is entitled to the benefit of its bargain and that the releases were intended to implement the parties’ agreement. However, the releases must be clear that they do not reach claims or third parties unrelated to the wage and hour claims being settled by this proceeding.
“A class action settlement must be approved by the court to protect ‘class members ... whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.’ [Citation.] Consequently, courts must remain vigilant and ensure that class releases do not extend to claims that are beyond the scope of the allegations in the complaint. Releases must be appropriately tethered to the complaint’s factual allegations. … Requiring a reasonable connection prevents the release from extending to claims that are only remotely related to the allegations in the complaint.” (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538 (Amaro).)
The court will require that the parties modify these releases and ensure they are consistent with Amaro.
(6) Content of Proposed Notice to Settlement Class Members
“The content of the class notice is subject to court approval. If class members are to be given the right to request exclusion from the class, the notice must include the following: [¶] (1) A brief explanation of the case, including the basic contentions or denials of the parties; [¶] (2) A statement that the court will exclude the member from the class if the member so requests by a specified date; [¶] (3) A procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusion from the class; [¶] (4) A statement that the judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all members who do not request exclusion; and [¶] (5) A statement that any member who does not request exclusion may, if the member so desires, enter an appearance through counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subd. (d).)
“In determining the manner of the notice, the court must consider: [¶] (1) The interests of the class; [¶] (2) The type of relief requested; [¶] (3) The stake of the individual class members; [¶] (4) The cost of notifying class members; [¶] (5) The resources of the parties; [¶] (6) The possible prejudice to class members who do not receive notice; and [¶] (7) The res judicata effect on class members. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subd. (e).)
Here, the proposed notice contains a brief explanation of the case (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at pp. 24, 26), a statement that the court will exclude a member if the request is submitted by a specified date (id. at pp. 25, 31-32), a procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusion from the class (ibid.), a statement that the settlement if approved will bind all members who do not request exclusion and that certain claims will be released (id. at pp. 25-26, 29-30), and a statement that a party who wishes to participate may object and appear through separate counsel (id. at pp. 25, 32).
The notice will be mailed to the putative class members in English with a Spanish translation. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 1.10.) Defendant will provide the administrator with the full name and last known home address for purposes of notice. (Id. at §§ 1.7, 7.4.1.) Within 14 days after receiving the class data, the administrator will transmit the notice via first class mail to the class members. (Id. at § 7.4.3.) The first page of the notice will prominently estimate the dollar amounts of any individual payments payable to the member, and the number of workweeks and pay periods used to calculate these amounts. (Ibid.) Before mailing notice, the administrator shall update the class member addresses using the national change of address database. (Ibid.) The settlement does not impose affirmative duties on participating class members in order to obtain payment. (Kim Decl., ¶ 70.) No claim form is required to participate in the settlement. (Id.) Individuals who wish to opt out or object may do so. (Id.)
If checks are returned as undeliverable, the administrator must conduct a class member address search and re-mail the checks to a forwarding address or another address determined by an address search. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at § 4.3.2.) For any member whose payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the administrator will transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the member. (Id., § 4.3.3.)
The court finds that notice easy to understand, sufficient to apprise the members of the rights and obligations of the members of the class in connection with the proposed settlement, and sufficient to notify those members of their right and opportunity to opt out of or present objections to the settlement. For these reasons, the court finds that the proposed class notice complies with due process. (See Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 694-695.) The cost of the notice and administration appears reasonable under the circumstances. (Southerland Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) The proposed notice appears to meet the statutory requirements. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766, subds. (d)-(f).)
The court notes that attorneys Emil Davtyan, David Yeremian, and Rose Sorial are disassociated from this action. (Not. Disasoc., Dec. 17, 2025.) However, these attorneys are in the proposed notice as class counsel. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1 at p. 33.) These attorneys who have disassociated from this action must be removed from the proposed notice before it is distributed.
Subject to these amendments, the content of the notice attached to the Kim declaration as Exhibit 1 at pages 24-33 is approved as to form. The remaining blanks shall be filled in and the notice shall be complete in all respects before distribution.
For the reasons stated herein, the court will continue the hearing on this motion to permit the parties an opportunity to cure the deficiencies described herein by an amendment to their agreement.