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