Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Maria Lopez Corona v. Vebo Enterprises, Inc., 24CVP-0137
Hearing: Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Date: July 14, 2026
Vebo Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant) employed Maria Lopez Corona (Plaintiff) on an hourly-paid, non-exempt basis at one of its restaurants from approximately January 18, 2021, to October 9, 2023. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶ 11.) On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant asserting personal claims for wrongful termination in violation of the California Family rights Act and Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 and various wage and hour violations. On June 24, 2024, Defendant filed a general denial and affirmative defenses to the complaint.
On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the FAC which added a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (PAGA). There is no indication Defendant filed an answer to the FAC.
On October 2, 2025, the parties participated in a settlement conference and reached a settlement of Plaintiff’s personal claims and the PAGA claim. (Declaration of Ruben Escobedo (Escobedo Dec.), Exh. 3.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for approval of the settlement.
On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that Defendant’s attorneys were electronically served with the moving papers, although the date of such service is not filled in on the proof of service. Nonetheless, service was made at least by February 20, 2026. The LWDA was also served with the settlement as required. (Escobedo Dec., ¶ 25.)
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiff seeks approval of the settlement of PAGA claims only. .
Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(2) provides that the “court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court. The court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.”
Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [disapproved on other grounds in
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, the civil penalties a PAGA plaintiff may recover on the state’s behalf are distinct from
the statutory damages or penalties that may be available to employees suing for individual violations. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381.) A reasonable settlement is measured by civil penalties a state labor law enforcement agency would assess and recover. (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.)
II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The parties reached the settlement at a settlement conference with Gregory Gillett. (Settlement, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff’s attorney asserts that he specializes in employment law and declares “I have served as counsel either for the prosecution or defense in connection with many class and representative PAGA actions throughout my career.” (Escobedo Dec., ¶¶ 11, 12, 15.)
The terms of the Settlement provide that Defendant shall pay a total of $25,000. Costs to be deducted from that amount are: (1) attorneys’ fees of $9,000; (2) attorney legal costs not to exceed $1,255.15; (3) $12,544.85 to Plaintiff for her personal claims; (4) $2,200 in PAGA penalties which will be allocated 75% to the LWDA and 25% to the Individual PAGA Payments in equal shares. 1 Thus, the Court must evaluate whether $2,200 is a reasonable settlement measured by civil penalties a state labor law enforcement agency would assess and recover.
Plaintiff states there are twenty-one (21) 2 “Aggrieved Employees,” defined as “Maria Lopez Corona and all other individuals employed by Vebo Enterprises, Inc. at the El Pollo Loco restaurant located at 2351 Theatre Dr, Paso Robles, CA 93446 between May 2, 2023, and May 2, 2024. (Settlement, ¶ 1.1.) “PAGA Period” means the period from May 2, 2023, through May 2, 2024. (Settlement, ¶ 1.12.)
The gross settlement is non-reversionary. (Settlement, ¶ 1.5.) The PAGA penalties to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees (“Employees’ Portion”) will be paid in equal shares estimated at $25 per Aggrieved Employee. (Settlement, ¶ 1.6.)
The Aggrieved Employees will release only claims or remedies for civil penalties asserted in the complaint and PAGA notices. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.2.) Plaintiff, by contrast, will release personal claims, waive Civil Code section 542, and release penalty claims whether known or unknown. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.1.)
III. Reasonableness of the Settlement
Plaintiff correctly states “[t]he court’s determination in this context involves a balancing of several factors, including but not limited to the strength of plaintiffs’ claims; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; and the experience and views of counsel. (Motion, p. 7, lns. 8-11.) Plaintiff submits little evidence of these factors.
1 Labor code section 2699, subdivision (m) provides that civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed 65 percent to the LWDA and 35 percent to the aggrieved employees.
2 The Settlement states there are twenty-one (21) Aggrieved Employees while the moving papers state there are twenty-two (22) Aggrieved Employees. (Motion, p. 5, lns. 16-17; Escobedo Dec., ¶ 17.)
Plaintiff presents no evidence that the parties engaged in informal or formal discovery of any kind. Plaintiff presents no evidence of estimated maximum PAGA penalties, let alone an evidentiary basis for estimated PAGA penalties. The moving papers state Plaintiff could “prove Defendant’s liability and collect seven-figure civil penalties,” but believed it was advisable to accept $2,200 due to the small number of employees. The motion states the “realistic maximum recovery was small” so Plaintiff agreed to “assess Defendant for only one standard penalty of $100 per employee.” (Motion, p. 7, lns. 13-17.) The alleged labor code violations the parties considered in arriving at this conclusion are not specified.
The bulk of settlement funds are awarded to Plaintiff for her personal claims arising from her termination after asking for days off to tend to her daughter’s serious health condition. (FAC, ¶¶ 15-16.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff asserted PAGA claims for violation of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (see, Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742). 3
Plaintiff argues PAGA penalties were reduced because there was evidence Defendant attempted to comply with the meal-and-rest requirements at issue which suggests only rest and meal break penalties were considered in the settlement. (Motion, p. 7, lns. 19-23.) Plaintiff must clarify the basis for the “seven-figure civil penalties” she is confident she could prove and must specify the relevant factors that apply in this case and support a reduction to $2,200.
Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence that the payment of $2,200 is a reasonable settlement of the PAGA claims.
IV. Ruling
The motion is denied without prejudice Plaintiff is directed to submit a copy of the Court’s order to the LWDA within 10 days after entry of the order. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (s)(3).)
3 The California Family Rights Act, which is codified in the Government Code (Gov. Code § 12945.2) rather than the Labor Code, is not subject to PAGA.
3