Gregoria Amaya v. Rose International Market, Inc. et al
Filing
43
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/6/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
10
11
14
15
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 5:14-cv-03331 NC
GREGORIA AMAYA,
v.
ROSE INTERNATIONAL MARKET,
INC.; SAIED MEHRANFAR and JAVAD
M MEHRANFAR,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff GREGORIA AMAYA requests that the Court dismiss defendants ROSE
20
INTERNATIONAL MARKET, INC.; SAIED MEHRANFAR and JAVAD M MEHRANFAR with
21
prejudice with respect to the following: (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act claims; (2) the
22
PAGA claims; and (3) the Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 40 (motion) 41 (Declaration in support).
23
24
25
26
27
All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. Nos. 17, 19.
The Court GRANTS AMAYA’s request as follows:
With respect to the Fair Labor Standards Claims, having reviewed the settlement
agreement, Dkt. No. 41-1, as well as plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration describing the potential
28
1
ORDER
1
2
unpaid wage value ($17,973.81) and the case’s potential value with penalties ($63,717.41),
Dkt. No. 41, the Court finds the agreement terms ($40,000.00 settlement amount) to be a
3
4
“fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” and dismisses the case. See Luo v.
5
Zynga Inc., No. 13-cv-00186 NC, 2014 WL 457742, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (internal
6
quotation marks and citation omitted).
7
As to the settlement of $500.00 for claims under the Private Attorney General Act of
8
9
2004, Cal. Labor Code 2698 et seq. the Court notes that while liability was contested the
10
potential value of the case based on plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration was $9,900.00. The
11
Court further notes that plaintiff received value both for her wage claims and penalty claims
12
under the $40,000.00 settlement. See Cal. Labor Code § 2699.3 (b)(4) (noting that the Court
13
14
should “ensure that the settlement provisions are at least as effective as the protections or
15
remedies provided by state and federal law.”) Because plaintiff AMAYA received value
16
under the settlement for her wage and penalty claims, and because the amount she received
17
was less than the total potential value of her individual claims, the Court finds the $500.00
18
PAGA penalty to not be objectionable and on that basis approves the settlement and
19
Clerk to vacate all future dates and close the file.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
UNIT
ED
Dated: October 6, 2015
_________________________
TED
GR M.
NATHANAELAN COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
NO
28
RT
2
thanael M
Judge Na
ER
H
ORDER
. Cousins
R NIA
25
RT
U
O
24
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
FO
22
The Court also dismisses the entire action with prejudice with instructions to the
LI
21
dismisses the PAGA claim with prejudice.
A
20
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?