Mann-Herbert v. Peachwood Medical Group Clovis, Inc.

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Mann-Herbert v. Peachwood Medical Group Clovis, Inc. Case No. 21CECG01599

Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling:

To deny plaintiffs’ motion for approval of PAGA settlement and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.)

Explanation:

1.

Introduction

Under Labor Code section 2699, “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to [PAGA]. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (i)(2).)

The statute does not explain what exactly the trial court should consider when reviewing a proposed PAGA settlement. However, recently the Court of Appeal in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 did provide some guidance. The court explained that “many federal district courts have applied the ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate’ standard from class action cases to evaluate PAGA settlements.” (Id. at pp. 75–76, disapproved on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) “Given PAGA's purpose to protect the public interest, we also agree with the LWDA and federal district courts that have found it appropriate to review a PAGA settlement to ascertain whether a settlement is fair in view of PAGA's purposes and policies.

We therefore hold that a trial 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.” (Id. at p. 77, internal citations and footnote omitted.) On the other hand, “PAGA does not provide that aggrieved employees must be heard on the approval of PAGA settlements... PAGA provides no mechanism for aggrieved employees, including those pursuing PAGA lawsuits, to be heard in objection to another PAGA settlement.

This concession is dispositive, and we will not read a requirement into a statute that does not appear therein.” (Id. at p. 79, internal citation omitted.)

2. Notice to LWDA

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2), states: “The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” Here, 3

plaintiff’s counsel has stated that notice of the settlement was provided to the LWDA on September of 2025. (Piercy decl., ¶ 6.) He does not include a copy of the notice with his declaration. However, it does appear that he has complied with the notice requirement.

3. Is the Settlement Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable?

As mentioned above, the Court of Appeal in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th 56 stated that the trial court should review PAGA settlements to determine whether they are fair, adequate and reasonable. (Moniz, supra, at pp. 75-77.)

Here, plaintiffs have not shown that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Plaintiffs claim that they are settling a “PAGA only” case, but in fact their complaint also alleges multiple class action causes of action based on the same violations that underlie their PAGA claim. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges seven class action claims for various wage and hour violations, as well as UCL and PAGA claims. (See Complaint filed on June 3, 2021.) There is nothing in the court’s docket that indicates that the class action claims were ever dismissed or settled previously.1 However, the settlement only provides payment to plaintiffs to settle their PAGA claims, and plaintiffs are apparently dismissing their other claims, including their class claims, without any additional consideration. (Exhibit 2 to Piercy decl., PAGA Settlement Agreement, p. 7, ¶ 5.1.)

Thus, it appears that plaintiffs are now abandoning their class action claims without explaining why they are dismissing their claims for no consideration, other than the payment for their PAGA claims. Plaintiffs have not made any showing that it would be fair, reasonable, or adequate to dismiss their class action claims for no money, especially since they are receiving $125,000 to settle the PAGA claim, which is based on the same Labor Code violations as the class action claims. If the PAGA claim is worth $125,000, then why are the other class actions claims based on the same alleged violations worth nothing at all?

Since plaintiffs have asserted multiple class action claims, they need to explain why it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to settle their class claims for no money, but at the same time accept $125,000 to settle their PAGA claims for the same violations. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244–245, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260 [listing factors court must consider in deciding whether to approve class action settlement].)

Here, plaintiffs’ counsel has not provided any explanation for the decision to settle the class claims for nothing, or why settling the class claims for no money is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the relevant factors. Therefore, the court will not approve the proposed settlement at this time. Plaintiffs’ counsel needs to provide a discussion of the reasons why they are settling their PAGA claim for $125,000 but dismissing their class claims without any additional payment.

1 Also, plaintiffs would need to obtain the court’s approval before dismissing their class claims.

(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.770) There is nothing in the court’s records indicating that it ever approved a dismissal of the class claims.

4. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Counsel has provided his declaration regarding his request for $25,000 in fees, including a summary of his lodestar fees. (Piercy decl., ¶ 14.) Counsel’s declaration is sufficient to show that the requested fees are reasonable, especially since the request for fees is only about 20% of the lodestar fees counsel incurred in the case.

Counsel has also adequately explained the request for $8,000 in costs. He states that his office has incurred costs of approximately $7,000 so far, as well as anticipated costs of $500 to finalize the case. (Id. at ¶ 15.) He has also now provided a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred so far in the case. (Ibid.) Therefore, he has sufficiently shown that the request for $8,000 in court costs is reasonable.

5. Administration Costs

The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc. will receive up to $4,000 to cover administration costs. However, ILYM has not provided a declaration from one of its representatives stating how much it will charge for administration costs. Therefore, plaintiffs have not shown that the requested administration costs are reasonable.

6. Incentive Award to Named Plaintiffs

The settlement also provides that the named plaintiffs will receive an incentive awards in the total amount of $12,500, with $7,500 paid to plaintiff Herbert and $5,000 paid to plaintiff Masterman. However, there are no declarations from the named plaintiffs stating the work they did on the case and why they should receive incentive payments. Therefore, plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to show that the requested payments are reasonable.

7.

Conclusion

The court intends to deny the order approving the PAGA settlement without prejudice and require plaintiffs’ counsel to provide additional evidence regarding the reasons why plaintiffs are not being paid to settle their class action claims, as well as more evidence regarding the requested settlement administrator’s fees and the incentive payments to the named plaintiffs.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 07/13/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5