Lorenzo Rivera v. Marriott International, Inc.

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS Document 78 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2056

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 LORENZO RIVERA, Case № 2:19-cv-05050-ODW (KSx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et CLASS ACTION AND PAGA 15 al, SETTLEMENT [76]

Defendants. 16

17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Lorenzo Rivera brings this action seeking relief for alleged violations 20 of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code by Defendant 21 Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (“Marriott”). (Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”), ECF No. 43.) 22 Although Rivera initially filed suit on behalf of a putative class, he now proceeds on 23 an individual basis and representative basis pursuant to the Private Attorneys General 24 Act (“PAGA”). (Decl. Janelle Carney Re: Dismissal Class Allegations (“Carney 25 Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–5, ECF No. 45; Order Re: Dismissal Class Allegations, ECF No. 47.) 26 The parties reached a settlement, and Rivera now moves without opposition for 27 preliminary approval of the parties’ Class and PAGA Settlement Agreement. (Mot. 28 Prelim. Approval Class Action Settlement (“Mot.”), ECF No. 76-1; Decl. Janelle Case 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS Document 78 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2057

1 Carney ISO Mot. Ex. 1 (“Class and PAGA Settlement Agreement”), ECF No. 76-2.) 2 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Rivera’s Motion.1 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 On April 24, 2019, Rivera brought a putative class action against Defendant 5 Marriott International, Inc. in Los Angeles Superior Court. (See Notice of Removal, 6 Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Rivera alleged that Marriott operates hotels and 7 employed Rivera and the proposed class members. (Id. ¶¶ 7–9, 15, 22.) Rivera 8 further alleged that Marriott failed to provide the proposed class members with 9 various statutory benefits mandated by California’s wage and hour laws. (Id. ¶¶ 14– 10 20.) Rivera asserted seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Wages; (2) Failure 11 to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (3) Failure to Provide Rest 12 Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure to Pay Wages of Terminated or 13 Resigned Employees; (5) Failure to Issue Itemized Wage Statements and Maintain 14 Records; (6) Indemnification for Expenditures or Losses in Discharge of Duties; and 15 (7) Unfair/Unlawful Business Practices. (Id. ¶¶ 33–87.) 16 On June 10, 2019, Marriott removed this action to federal court. (Notice of 17 Removal.) Rivera moved to remand this action to state court, and the Court denied 18 that motion. (Mot. Remand, ECF No. 12; Order Den. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 21.) 19 Rivera subsequently amended his complaint three times, correcting the named 20 Defendant to Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and adding an eighth cause of action for 21 Violation of California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). (First 22 Am. Compl., ECF No. 24; Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 31; TAC.) Among the 23 amendments, Rivera also narrowed the scope of the class allegations to the hotel 24 location at which Rivera worked. (See generally TAC.) 25 However, on October 5, 2021, Rivera’s counsel submitted a declaration stating 26 that Rivera “wishes to proceed on an individual basis and representative basis 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

2 Case 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS Document 78 Filed 10/19/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2058

1 pursuant to PAGA.” (Carney Decl. ¶ 4.) In that same declaration, Rivera 2 “request[ed] that the Court allow the dismissal of Plaintiff’s proposed class allegations 3 without prejudice.” (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court granted that request on November 1, 2021, 4 dismissing all class allegations in this case. (Order Re: Dismissal Class Allegations.) 5 After participating in mediation, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on 6 January 24, 2022. (Notice Settlement, ECF No. 66; Mot. 9–10.) On March 18, 2022, 7 the parties stipulated to remanding this action to state court for the sole purpose of 8 obtaining approval of the parties’ settlement. (Stip. Remand, ECF No. 70.) The 9 parties noted that, in the event that the state court denied settlement approval, they 10 intended to again remove the action to this Court to continue litigating. (Id. at 1.) The 11 Court denied that stipulation, indicating that the parties may either “stipulate to 12 remand to state court with the intention of remaining there or, alternatively, . . . seek 13 settlement approval in this Court.” (Min. Order Den. Stip. 1–2, ECF No. 71.) Rivera 14 now seeks preliminary approval of the parties’ Class and PAGA Settlement 15 Agreement. (Mot.) 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(e), the claims of a proposed 18 class “may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 19 Where parties reach a settlement agreement prior to class certification, this approval 20 process requires courts to “peruse the proposed compromise to ratify both the 21 propriety of the certification and the fairness of the settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 22 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 With his motion, Rivera asks the Court to conditionally certify a class and 24 preliminarily approve the parties’ Class and PAGA Settlement. (See generally Mot.; 25 Notice of Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Action Settlement, ECF No. 76.) At the 26 same time, Rivera acknowledges that, pursuant to his request, the Court previously 27 dismissed all class allegations in this case. (Mot. 2.) Absent any class allegations, 28 this Court cannot conditionally certify a class, nor can it preliminarily approve a class

3 Cas 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS Document 78 Filed 10/19/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:2059

1 || action settlement. Because there are no class allegations at issue in this case, the 2 || Court must deny Rivera’s Motion. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Rivera’s Motion for Preliminary 5|| Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, (ECF No. 76), WITHOUT 6] PREJUDICE. Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Rivera shall seek 7|| (1) approval for the settlement of the representative PAGA claims, or (2) leave to 8 | amend to reinstate the class allegations. Alternatively, the parties may again stipulate 9 || to remand this case to state court provided that they intend to remain in state court. 10 || (See Min. Order Den. Stip.) 1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 October 19, 2022 ~ 15 , “ gf Géed io? 7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28