Gutilla v. Aerotek, Inc.,

Filing 30

ORDER Directing Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing Regarding Approval of Settlement, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/9/2017. (Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement is set for 3/21/2017, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.)(Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA GUTILLA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:15-cv-00191-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC. a corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 29) Defendants. On February 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation for approval of a settlement 18 pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). (Doc. No. 29.) Therein, the 19 parties stated that after engaging in mediation, they agreed to a settlement of plaintiff’s 20 representative claims under PAGA. Accordingly, they now seek the court’s approval of the 21 parties’ settlement as to those claims. 22 Under California law, the trial court must “review and approve” any settlement of claims 23 brought pursuant to PAGA. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2). In order to review and approve the 24 proposed settlement agreement, however, this court must have before it a copy of the fully 25 executed agreement, or alternatively, a sworn declaration summarizing all relevant terms of the 26 agreement as it pertains to plaintiff’s PAGA claims. Accordingly, the court hereby orders the 27 parties to file a copy of the proposed settlement agreement if it has not already been provided in 28 full, or alternatively, a sworn declaration describing all relevant terms of the agreement. In 1 1 addition, the court directs the parties to submit briefing regarding the appropriate standard of 2 review this court is to apply in considering and approving a settlement agreement pertaining to 3 PAGA claims. 4 For the reasons set forth above, 5 1. The parties are directed to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, by no later 6 than March 6, 2017, (a) addressing the applicable standard of review in approving 7 settlements of claims brought pursuant to PAGA, (b) identifying relevant authority, if any, 8 to support their position, (c) addressing the reasons approval should be granted in light of 9 the applicable legal standard; 10 2. The parties are further directed to file a copy of the fully executed settlement agreement,1 11 or alternatively a sworn declaration describing all relevant terms of the agreement, on 12 which the court may base its decision by no later than March 6, 2017; and 13 3. A hearing on final approval of settlement is set for March 21, 2017, at 9:30am in 14 15 Courtroom 5 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 9, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 To the extent the parties’ settlement agreement includes provisions that do not pertain to plaintiffs’ PAGA claims and that do not require court approval, the parties may request to file portions of the agreement under seal in accordance with this court’s Local Rules and upon a showing that “compelling reasons” support such secrecy. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?