Santino Lopez vs Redstone Residential Inc

Case Number

24CV03557

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing (Final Approval for Class Action Settlement)

Tentative Ruling

Santino Lopez v. Redstone Residential, Inc.

Case No.  24CV03557

Hearing Date:         3/24/2025                               

HEARING:    Final approval of class action and PAGA settlement

           

ATTORNEYS:          Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C. and Joshua S. Falakassa of Falakassa Law, PC for plaintiff Santino Lopez and the putative class.

                                    Sue M. Bendavid / Nicholas Kanter of Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan for defendant Redstone Residential, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING:  

The motion will be granted.

Background: Plaintiff Santino Lopez was employed by Redstone Residential, Inc. (Redstone), an entity which manages and operates student housing and multifamily properties in California, from June 15, 2022, to January 13, 2023, as a non-exempt employee with the title of “Leasing Specialist.” He filed a wage and hour action against Redstone on February 20, 2023, alleging causes of action for (1) failure to pay all overtime wages, (2) failure to pay all sick time, (3) meal period violations, (4) rest period violations, (5) wage statement violations, (6) waiting time penalties, (7) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and (8) unfair business practices. Upon the ultimate settlement of the action, the parties agreed to permit the filing of a First Amended Complaint which added a PAGA claim. That pleading was filed on September 11, 2024.

After hearing on November 25, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement, finding the settlement to be within the range of acceptable settlements. Under the settlement, Redstone has agreed to pay $163,537 on a non-reversionary basis, in order to settle and release all claims asserted by plaintiff in the class action and PAGA action on behalf of the class. The settlement defines the “class” as including all individuals who are or were employed by Redstone as non-exempt hourly employees during the Class Period which, in turn, is defined as the period from February 10, 2019, to June 28, 2024. PAGA Member was defined to include all individuals who are or were employed by Redstone as non-exempt hourly employees in California during the PAGA Period, which was defined to mean the period from January 18, 2022, to June 28, 2024.

As approved by the court, the Net Settlement Amount available to distribution to the class is the Gross Settlement Amount of $163,537, from which has been deducted Attorneys’ Fees of $54,512.33, Litigation Costs not to exceed $25,000, Administrator Costs not to exceed $5,000, PAGA Penalties of $10,000, of which $7,500 will be paid to the LWDA, and $2,500 will be paid to the Aggrieved Employees, and a service award to the named plaintiff not to exceed $10,000, for a total Net Settlement Amount of $59,024.67.

Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the class action and PAGA settlement, including the total amount of the settlement, the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, class representative incentive award, settlement administrator fees, and PAGA payment allocation and payment of 75% thereof to the LWDA, as well as certification of the class for settlement purposes only. The motion notes that the Settlement Class Members were deemed to participate in the Settlement, and were not required to submit a claim form to receive funds, and there is no reversion to defendant under the terms of the settlement—to the extent any checks remain uncashed after 180 days, the settlement administrator will submit the funds to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the class member. The motion for final approval is supported by the declaration of plaintiff’s attorney Bokhour, the declaration of plaintiff’s attorney Falakassa, and the declaration of Cassandra Polites, a Case Manager for settlement administrator ILYM Group, Inc.

Because the litigation costs sought by plaintiff’s counsel totaled $15,946.45, the Net Settlement Amount rose from $59,024.67 (which took into consideration approved litigation costs not to exceed $25,000) to $68,078.22. All other amounts approved were unaltered. Given the new Net Settlement Amount, the average payment to each participating class member will be $932.58, with the highest payment expected to be $3,770.61.

The Notice Packet was successfully sent to all 73 Settlement Class Members. No class member objected to the settlement, or requested exclusion from the settlement. There have been no disputes regarding the calculations of the Settlement Class Member of the settlement administrator’s calculations of work weeks worked during the class period.

There are 44 Aggrieved Employees with respect to the PAGA settlement, who worked 785 pay periods during the PAGA Period. The highest individual PAGA payment is estimated to be $203.82, and the average individual PAGA payment is estimated to be $56.82. Aggrieved Employees may not opt out of the PAGA settlement.

ANALYSIS: The Court will grant the motion for final approval of the class action and PAGA settlements.

After having given preliminary approval of the class action settlement and provided notice to the class, the final approval hearing is the final step in the approval process. During the final approval hearing, the court conducts a more detailed inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(g).) If the court approves the settlement agreement at the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter a judgment that includes a provision for the court to retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(h).)

“[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; in 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].)

The first three elements for the presumption of fairness were established at the time of the preliminary approval. No evidence has been presented which would alter the court's preliminary determination of each of these elements. With respect to the fourth element, the parties have presented evidence that the settlement administrator received no requests for exclusion from the settlement, and no member of the putative class objected to the class action settlement. As a result, all of the factors are present to give rise to a presumption that the class action settlement was fair, and the Court finds the class action settlement to be fair.

Apart from the presumption of fairness, the court must still determine the adequacy of a class action settlement by independently satisfying itself that the consideration being received for the release of the class members’ claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) The court has reviewed the evidence and arguments presented, and is satisfied that the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the strengths and weakness of the claims.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances present here, the Court finds that the stipulated settlement preliminarily approved is fair and reasonable to all concerned, and it will therefore grant the motion for final approval. The Court has certified the class for settlement purposes only. It will further affirm named plaintiff Santino Lopez as Class Representative. In light of the time and efforts expended by the Class Representative in assisting Class Counsel in pursuing this matter, at substantial risk should the actions have been unsuccessful and resulted in personal liability for defendant’s costs, and with a small financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, the Court finds the incentive award of $10,000.00 to be paid to the Class Representative to be reasonable, and will approve it.

The Court further affirms and approves the allocation of $10,000.00 of the Gross Settlement Amount to the PAGA claims, and affirms and approves the payment of the amount of $7,500 to  the LWDA, as required by law.

The Court will also affirm Joshua Falakassa of Falakassa Law, P.C. and Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement. The stipulated settlement provided for an award of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel of $54,512.33, and litigation costs not to exceed $25,000. Plaintiff's motion seeks approval of the fees and costs, noting that the actual costs incurred to date for which they seek reimbursement total $15,946.45. The motion presented evidence that the lodestar amount of fees incurred totals $55,823.50. “[T]he court’s task in a negotiated settlement of fees is to determine if the negotiated fee is fair. That task requires the court to review the settlement as a whole, including the fee award, to ensure that it was fairly and honestly negotiated, is not collusive and adequately protects the interests of the [parties].” (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 444.) The Court finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, the attorney’s fees and costs sought by plaintiff’s counsel are fair and reasonable, and the Court will approve the $54,512.33 fee award and the $15,946.45 cost award.

The Court further affirms payment of administration costs to settlement administrator ILYM Group, Inc., in the amount of $5,000.00.

As requested by the parties, the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of the settlement until all payments and obligations contemplated by the settlement have been fully carried out.

The Court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by the plaintiff, and intends to execute it.