Sandoval v. The Brigantine, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00189
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER SANDOVAL; ARLYN Case No.: 20-CV-189 JLS (MSB) ANGULO; BRIAN MEDIGOVICH; 12 JASON CASILLAS; JOHNNY ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 ESPINOZA; LUKE FRANCIS MOTIONS FOR (1) APPROVAL OF JOHNSON; MISAEL ROSALEZ; SETTLEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL 14 SALVADOR VALADEZ; SILVIA STATUTORY CLAIMS AND PAGA 15 ALEGRIA; AND YOLANDA FLORES CLAIMS FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, LANDA; individually and on behalf of AND (2) DISMISSAL 16 similarly situated employees and 17 aggrieved employees, (ECF Nos. 18, 19) 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 THE BRIGANTINE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1–25, inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22

23 Presently before the Court are the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement 24 of Individual Statutory Claims and PAGA Claims for Civil Penalties (“Joint Mot. to 25 Approve,” ECF No. 18) and Joint Motion for Dismissal (“Joint Mot. to Dismiss,” ECF No. 26 19). Having reviewed the Parties’ briefing and the law, the Court GRANTS the Joint 27 Motions. 28 / / / 1 On November 26, 2019, named Plaintiffs filed a complaint in San Diego Superior 2 Court, alleging claims based on Defendant The Brigantine, Inc.’s laying them off and 3 closing of Miguel’s Cocina-Eastlake, the restaurant where Plaintiffs had formerly worked. 4 See Joint Mot. to Approve at 2; see generally Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1 Ex. A). 5 Named Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 6 Notification (“WARN”) Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq., and the California equivalent 7 thereof, Cal. Labor Code §§ 1400 et seq.; and also sought civil penalties under the 8 California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). See generally Compl. On January 9 29, 2020, Defendant removed to this District. See generally ECF No. 1. 10 Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation 11 Conference (“ENE”) on July 15, 2020, that was continued on August 7 and 31, 2020, 12 resulting in settlement of this litigation. See ECF Nos. 9–15. During the ENEs, Defendant 13 contended “that Plaintiffs could not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of at least fifty 14 (50) laid off employees required to invoke the WARN Act,” and provided Plaintiff with 15 documentation of the number of laid off employees to support that contention. Joint Mot. 16 to Approve at 3. Plaintiffs agreed to settle their individual claims for a total of $5,000, 17 inclusive of their attorneys’ fees and costs,1 based on Defendant’s documentation. Id. 18 Because of their inability to meet the jurisdictional threshold for the WARN Act, “Plaintiffs 19 waived their claims for civil penalties under PAGA.” Id. Accordingly, “[n]o portion of 20 the settlement has been apportioned to civil penalties under PAGA.” Id. at 4. 21 After the ENEs, Magistrate Judge Berg ordered the Parties to file a joint motion for 22 dismissal on or before October 30, 2020. See ECF No. 17. On October 30, 2020, in 23 accordance with Magistrate Judge Berg’s order, the Parties filed the present Joint Motions. 24 See ECF Nos. 18, 19. 25 / / / 26

27 1 Of the $5,000, $2,276.15 is to go to attorneys’ fees and costs, and $2,723.85 is to be allocated among 28 the ten named Plaintiffs for their individual statutory claims, at an average of $272.38 per Plaintiff. See 1 The Parties claim “that there is good cause for approving a settlement that does not 2 provide for the payment of civil penalties under PAGA,” as “Plaintiffs agree that they are 3 not ‘aggrieved employees’ for any purpose under the California Labor Code, and 4 specifically PAGA.” Joint Mot. to Approve at 4. The PAGA claim “w[as] based on alleged 5 violations of the WARN Act,” but, in light of Defendant’s evidence, “Plaintiffs would have 6 had difficulty proving the alleged violations of the WARN Act.” Id. Thus, the Parties 7 assert that the Court should approve the settlement without payment of civil penalties and 8 dismiss the case with prejudice as to the named Plaintiffs only, and without prejudice as to 9 any unnamed employees putatively represented by Plaintiffs. Id. 10 “[T]he ‘court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed’ under 11 PAGA.” Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 12 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Cal. Labor Code § 2699(l)(2)). The Parties are clear that 13 this is a settlement of only the individual named Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, and 14 that any dismissal of claims as to putative class members would be without prejudice. The 15 Parties further note that named Plaintiffs “waived” their PAGA claims in settlement due to 16 PAGA’s inapplicability in light of Defendant’s evidence; the Parties agree that named 17 Plaintiffs are not “aggrieved employees,” and thus it seems unlikely named Plaintiffs would 18 have standing to pursue PAGA civil penalties. See Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699(c), (e)(2), 19 (g)(1). Thus, the structuring of the settlement as one solely for payment for named 20 Plaintiffs’ statutory individual claims appears fair and reasonable. 21 “The parties do not cite, and the Court is not aware of any legal authority requiring 22 court approval of individual offers of settlement.” Olivo v. Fresh Harvest, Inc., No. 17- 23 CV-02153-L-WVG, 2019 WL 6329227, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019) (footnote 24 omitted). In light of the foregoing, the Court does not believe it necessary or appropriate 25 to engage in a detailed analysis of the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement terms, 26 or the appropriateness of the attorneys’ fees. In sum, on the record before it, the Court 27 finds the proposed settlement, without payment of civil penalties under PAGA, “‘fair and 28 / / / 1 || adequate in view of the purposes and policies of [PAGA].’” Flores, 253 F. Supp. 3d at 2 || 1077 (quoting O’Connor vy. Uber Techs., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motions (ECF Nos. 18, 19). The Parties’ 4 settlement is APPROVED. As stipulated by the Parties, the Court DISMISSES WITH 5 || PREJUDICE named Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, with each party to bear its own 6 and fees incurred in this action. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 action as to any unnamed employees putatively represented by Plaintiffs. As this 8 concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL CLOSE the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 5, 2020 , tt i Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28