Ortega v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 THERESA ORTEGA, et al., Case No. 23-cv-05596-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR 9 v. APPROVAL OF PAGA DISMISSAL

10 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 45 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ joint request for approval of Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal 14 of their Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim, under California Labor Code Section 15 2699, based on a settlement reached by the parties. ECF No. 45. 16 Court approval is required for settlements of PAGA claims. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(s)(2). 17 See Kulik v. NMCI Med. Clinic Inc., No. 21-CV-03495-BLF, 2023 WL 2503539, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 18 Mar. 13, 2023). “While PAGA requires a trial court to approve a PAGA settlement, district courts 19 have noted there is no governing standard to review PAGA settlements.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. 20 Libre Tech. Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1371-GPC-KSC, 2020 WL 2467060, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 21 2020)). However, courts often review the settlement terms to ensure that the terms: “(1) meet the 22 statutory requirements set forth by PAGA, and (2) are fundamentally fair, reasonable, and 23 adequate in view of PAGA's public policy goals.” Id. at *4 (quoting Chamberlain v. Baker 24 Hughes, a GE Co., LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00831-DAD-JLT, 2020 WL 4350207, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 25 29, 2020)). 26 Accordingly, the parties shall file a short, joint brief providing legal authority supporting 27 their contention that the terms of their proposed settlement agreement are “fundamentally fair, 1 days of the issuance of this order. If the parties have not already done so, they must also submit 2 the proposed settlement agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, as required 3 under California Labor Code § 2699(s)(2), and file proof of the submission with the Court.

5 Dated: June 18, 2025 6 JON S. TIGAR 4 nited States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28