Gutilla v. Aerotek, Inc.,

Filing 34

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close the Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/21/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

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

No. 1:15-cv-00191-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
AEROTEK, INC. a corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive,

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT
TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Doc. No. 29)

Defendants.

17
18

On February 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal of the action with

19

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 29.) Therein,

20

the parties stated that after engaging in mediation, they agreed to a settlement of plaintiff’s

21

representative claims under the California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Under

22

California law, the trial court must “review and approve” any settlement of claims brought

23

pursuant to PAGA. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2). Accordingly, the parties seek the court’s

24

approval of the parties’ settlement as to those claims. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) On February 10, 2017,

25

the courted directed to the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the settlement. (Doc.

26

No. 30.) On March 6, 2017, the parties filed the supplemental briefing. (Doc. No. 31.) On

27

March 21, 2017, the court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement. (Doc. No. 33.)

28

Attorney Vladimir Kozina appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Shannon
1

1

Nakabayashi appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant. (Id.) Having considered the

2

parties’ request and arguments in support thereof, and for the reasons set forth below, the court

3

will grant the request for approval of settlement of plaintiffs’ PAGA claims.

4
5

BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2014, plaintiff filed this action against defendant in Stanislaus County

6

Superior Court. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: 1) failure to pay

7

minimum wage; 2) failure to pay overtime; 3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; 4)

8

failure to timely pay wages; 5) failure to pay wages upon termination; 6) violation of federal

9

wage laws (overtime); 7) unfair business practices; and 8) sex/gender discrimination. (Doc. No.

10

3-1 at 4.) The complaint also asserted claims under PAGA. (Id. at 6–7.) The PAGA claims are

11

premised on the allegation that plaintiff, and other similarly-situated California employees of

12

defendant, were not properly classified as exempt because their base salary was less than twice

13

minimum wage and because the employees did not meet the duties test for exempt employees.

14

(Id. at 6–8.) On February 5, 2015, defendant removed the action to this court. (Doc. No. 2.)

15

Discovery in this action, however, revealed that plaintiff and defendant’s other similarly-situated

16

California employees received an additional guaranteed salary amount and regular cost of living

17

adjustment that brought their overall regular compensation over the legal minimum salary for

18

exempt employees in California. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 2–3.)

19

On December 19, 2016, after engaging in this discovery, the parties agreed to and

20

executed a settlement agreement that resolved plaintiff’s individual claims only. (See Doc. Nos.

21

31-1 at 2; 31-2 at 1–2.) In exchange for a confidential sum of money, plaintiff agreed to dismiss

22

her own wage and hour and discrimination claims, as well as her own PAGA claim, with

23

prejudice. (Id.) No PAGA penalties are to be paid as part of the settlement and no one’s PAGA

24

claims are released except for plaintiff’s. (Id.)

25

LEGAL STANDARD

26

In 2003, the California Legislature enacted the Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab.

27

Code §§ 2698 et seq., after declaring (i) that adequate financing of labor law enforcement was

28

necessary to achieve maximum compliance; (ii) that staffing levels for state labor law
2

1

enforcement agencies have declined and were unable to keep up with a growing labor market;

2

(iii) that vigorous assessment and collection of civil penalties provides a meaningful deterrent to

3

unlawful conduct; and (iv) that it was therefore in the public interest to allow aggrieved

4

employees, acting as private attorneys general, to seek and recover civil penalties for Labor Code

5

violations. 2003 Cal. Stat. 6629. Under PAGA, an “aggrieved employee” may bring an action

6

for civil penalties for labor code violations on behalf of herself and other current or former

7

employees. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a).1 A plaintiff suing under PAGA “does so as the proxy or

8

agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969,

9

986 (2009). Accordingly, a judgment in a PAGA action “binds all those, including nonparty

10

aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the

11

government.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.

12

4th 348, 381 (2014) (“When a government agency is authorized to bring an action on behalf of an

13

individual or in the public interest, and a private person lacks an independent legal right to bring

14

the action, a person who is not a party but who is represented by the agency is bound by the

15

judgment as though the person were a party.”).

16

The PAGA statute imposes a number of limits on litigants. First, because a PAGA action

17

functions as a “substitute” for an action brought by the state government, a plaintiff suing under

18

PAGA is limited to recovery of civil penalties only, rather than damages available privately

19

through direct or class action claims. Id. Second, to bring an action under PAGA, an aggrieved

20

employee must first provide written notice to the LWDA as well as to the employer. Cal. Lab.

21

Code § 2699.3(a)(1). Third, any civil penalties recovered must be distributed as follows: 75

22

percent to the LWDA, and the remaining 25 percent to the aggrieved employees. Cal. Lab. Code

23

§ 2699(i).

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

An “aggrieved employee” is defined as “any person who was employed by the alleged violator
and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” Cal. Lab. Code
§ 2699(c).
3

Finally, a trial court must “review and approve” any settlement of PAGA claims. Cal.

1
2

Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).2 This court is unable to find, and the parties have not identified, any

3

published authority identifying the proper standard of review of PAGA settlements to be

4

employed by the court. In the class action context, where PAGA claims often also appear, a

5

district court must independently determine that a proposed settlement agreement is

6

“fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable” before granting approval. See Officers for Justice

7

v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); see

8

also In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 546 F.3d 667, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2008). However, this is not a

9

class action lawsuit, and PAGA claims such as the one before the court here are intended to serve

10

a decidedly different purpose—namely to protect the public rather than for the benefit of private

11

parties. See Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 986. In one recent district court decision, the LWDA provided

12

some guidance regarding court approval of PAGA settlements. See O’Connor v. Uber Techs.,

13

Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2016), California Labor and Workforce Development

14

Agency’s Comments on Proposed PAGA Settlement (“LWDA Comments”);3 see also Syed v. M-

15

I, L.L.C., No. 1:12-cv-01718-DAD-MJS, 2017 WL 714367, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017). In

16

that case, where both class action and PAGA claims were covered by a proposed settlement, the

17

LWDA stressed that

18

when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief provided for under the
PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the underlying
purpose of the statute to benefit the public and, in the context of a
class action, the court evaluate whether the settlement meets the
standards of being “fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate”
with reference to the public policies underlying the PAGA.

19
20
21
22

O’Connor, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 1133; see also Syed, 2017 WL 714367, at *13 (quoting same with

23

approval).

24

/////

25

2

26
27
28

The proposed settlement must also be submitted to the LWDA at the same time it is submitted
to the court. Id.
3

See also id. at 3 (“The LWDA is not aware any existing case law establishing a specific
benchmark for PAGA settlements, either on their own terms or in relation to the recovery on
other claims in the action.”).
4

1

Recognizing the distinct issues presented by class actions, this court is nevertheless

2

persuaded by the LWDA’s reasoning presented in O’Connor and therefore adopts its proposed

3

standard in evaluating the PAGA-only settlement agreement now before the court. Accordingly,

4

the court will approve a settlement of PAGA claims upon a showing that the settlement terms (1)

5

meet the statutory requirements set forth by PAGA, and (2) are fundamentally fair, reasonable,

6

and adequate4 in view of PAGA’s public policy goals.

7

DISCUSSION
Here, the proposed settlement of plaintiffs’ PAGA claims is appropriate for approval. In

8
9

accordance with the statute’s requirements, plaintiffs submitted notices of alleged Labor Code

10

violations to the LWDA and defendant prior to bringing this action. (See Doc. No. 31-2 at 1.) In

11

a declaration, plaintiff’s counsel represents that the parties arrived at the settlement agreement

12

after discovery revealed a lack of merit in the PAGA claims. (See Doc. No. 31-1 at 2.) No

13

PAGA penalties are paid as part of the settlement and no one’s PAGA claims are released except

14

for plaintiff’s own. (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff has submitted a copy of the settlement to the

15

LWDA through its online portal on February 1, 2017, and the LWDA has not commented on or

16

objected to the settlement. (Id.) Having reviewed the parties’ submission and the terms of the

17

proposed settlement, the court finds that the settlement of plaintiffs’ PAGA claims is fair,

18

reasonable, and adequate in light of the public policy goals of PAGA.

19

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons set forth above, the court is satisfied that the settlement of plaintiffs’

21

PAGA claims is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the public policies

22

underlying PAGA. Accordingly,
1. The parties’ settlement agreement is approved with respect to plaintiffs’ PAGA

23
24

claims;

25
4

26
27
28

The court’s determination as to fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy may involve a balancing
of several factors including but not limited to the following: the strength of plaintiffs’ claims; the
risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the amount offered in
settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; and the
experience and views of counsel. See Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625.
5

1

2. Plaintiffs are directed to submit a copy of this order to the LWDA within ten days of

2
3

the date of this order;
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(A)(ii) and the parties joint

4

stipulation for dismissal (Doc. No. 29), filed February 1, 2017, this action has been

5

dismissed with prejudice and without an award of attorneys’ fees or costs; and

6
7
8

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 21, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6