Erin O'Brien v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, et al.

P. 3.) "Unbeknownst to me at the time, the assigned associate and his support staff failed to properly manage and prosecute this matter, including failing to timely comply with certain discovery obligations and Court-ordered deadlines. Their mishandling of this file was not an isolated incident and was part of broader performance and case management issues which ultimately resulted in their separation from the firm." (Farzam decl., P. 4.)

"Upon discovering the extent of the deficiencies and neglect in this case, my office immediately undertook efforts to correct the issues, review the outstanding discovery, communicate with opposing counsel, and bring the Plaintiff into compliance. (Farzam decl., P. 5.)

"Since that time, Plaintiff has served verified discovery responses and supplemental responses and has produced responsive documents presently available and within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Additional supplementation has also been provided in good faith in an effort to address concerns raised by Defendants." (Farzam decl., P. 6 & Exh. 1.)

It is axiomatic that Farzam, as Plaintiff's attorney of record, is ultimately the attorney responsible for the handling of this case and for the supervision of subordinates who perform work on the case. While Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses are still deficient in some respects, the amended responses give the parties the opportunity to further meet and confer, and, if necessary, to bring a further motion regarding the responses. The providing of responses largely moots the present motion. However, the Court will order that Plaintiff fully comply with the order that he produce all responsive documents to the request for production of documents. If he fails to do so, evidence sanctions will be imposed that will prevent Plaintiff from introducing any non-produced documents into evidence at trial.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $2,625.00 for the necessity of bringing the present motion. Defendants' counsel declares: "I spent a total of 4.8 hours researching, reviewing and preparing for Defendant's motion for order compelling responses. I anticipate having to spend an additional 1 hour reviewing Plaintiff Julian Broadbery's opposition, 3 hours preparing Defendant's reply, 1 hour attending the hearing on Defendant's motion and an estimated 6 hours round trip travel to the hearing on Defendant's motion, and $60.00 fees associated with filing this motion. My regular billable rate on similar cases such as this is $175.00 per hour. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court award sanctions in the amount of $2,625.00."

"The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The Court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the Court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030, subd. (a).)

"Plaintiff does not oppose reasonable monetary sanctions to address any inconvenience or additional work caused by the delays." (Opp., p. 4, ll. 19-21.)

Monetary sanctions will be imposed. Specifically, because he admits the failure to respond was the fault of his office, Plaintiff's counsel will be responsible for the payment of the monetary sanctions. However, the amount will be reduced. Six hours of travel time is unreasonable. There is no need for Defendants' counsel to drive from San Diego, where his office is located, to Santa Barbara for a routine discovery hearing. Defendants' counsel has the option of appearing remotely. Therefore, the total sanctions imposed, for the present motion, shall be $1,715.00.

Tentative Ruling: Erin O'Brien v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, et al. Tentative Ruling: Erin O'Brien v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Erin O'Brien: Marcus J. Bradley, Kiley L. Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher LLP For Defendants Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital, and Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital: Daniel J. McQueen, Brett D. Young, Arentfox Schiff LLP

RULING

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiff for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement is granted. The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted with the motion and intends on signing the same. The relevant terms include: Preliminary approval of the settlement set forth in the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement is granted; The proposed settlement class is conditionally certified; Plaintiff Erin O'Brien is provisionally appointed as the representative of the settlement class; Bradley Grombacher LLP is provisionally appointed as class counsel; Distribution of the proposed notice of class action settlement to the settlement class is approved; ILYM Group, Inc. is provisionally appointed as the third-party settlement administrator; A hearing on Final Approval of Settlement is set for December 4, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3.

All documents related to the final approval, fees, costs, and enhancement award, shall be filed no later than 16 court days prior to the final approval hearing date.

Background

The first amended complaint (FAC) filed in this action by plaintiff Erin O'Brien, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, against defendants Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital, and Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, alleges that from approximately February 2018, through the present, she was employed as a Clinical Nurse II by defendants, as an hourly, non-exempt employee in Santa Barbara, California. From February 2018, through December 2019, plaintiff worked as a full-time Clinical Nurse II.

From January 2020, through December 2022, plaintiff worked as a full-time Clinical Resource Nurse. From January 2023, through the present, plaintiff worked as a part-time Clinical Resource Nurse. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay plaintiff overtime wages, minimum and overtime wages, to provide or pay for missed meal and rest periods, to provide complete and accurate wage statements reflecting the total number of hours worked by plaintiff, to keep complete and accurate payroll records, and to reimburse plaintiff for necessary business related expenses.

On October 25, 2024, defendants answered the FAC with a general denial and 24 affirmative defenses. On April 24, 2026, plaintiff filed the present unopposed motion for an order granting preliminary approval class action and PAGA. Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, (2) conditionally certifying the class, (3) preliminarily approving plaintiff as the class representative of the settlement class, (4) preliminarily approving plaintiff's counsel as class counsel for the settlement class, (5) preliminarily approving ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator and preliminarily approving the costs of the settlement administration, (6) approving as to form and ordering that the notice of settlement be given to the class, and (7) Setting a hearing on final approval. The motion is unopposed.

Analysis

The purpose of the preliminary approval hearing is to determine whether the settlement is within the range of reasonableness for preliminary approval and to approve or deny certification of a provisional settlement class. A full inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement occurs at the final approval hearing. (Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (g).) "'The court has a fiduciary responsibility as guardians of the rights of the absentee class members when deciding whether to approve a settlement agreement.'" (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) The court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

"The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include 'the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.' [Citations.] This list 'is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.' [Citation.]" (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)

A PAGA action is a type of qui tam action, in which a private party is authorized to bring an action to recover a penalty on behalf of the government and receive part of the recovery as compensation. (Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 753.) In doing so, the employee acts as proxy for the state labor law enforcement agency; the proceeding is designed to protect the public, not to benefit private parties. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.)

The dispute is between the employer and the state. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81.) The purpose of PAGA is not to recover damages, restitution, or redress the employees' injuries, but to recover civil penalties to remediate present violations and deter future ones. (Id. at p. 86.) While a PAGA case is representative in nature, it is not a class action and may be brought without the procedural requirements involved in class actions. "Except as provided in subdivision (n), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 65 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws, including the administration of this part, and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 35 percent to the aggrieved employees." (Lab.

Code, Sec. 2699, subd. (m).)

On January 15, 2026, the parties participated in mediation with Jeffrey Fuchsman and agreed to settlement terms. (Bradley decl., P. 11.) On March 10, 2026, after extensive discussions and multiple revisions to the settlement agreement, the parties entered into a fully executed settlement agreement. (Bradley decl., P. 12 & Exh. 1.) Pursuant to the executed agreement, the parties stipulate to settlement of the class action and PAGA claims, including the following terms: The Class Period means the period from November 10, 2022, through April 15, 2026. (Agreement, P. 5.)

The PAGA Period means the period from July 1, 2023, to April 15, 2026. (Agreement, P. 16.) "Class Members" or " Settlement Class" means all persons who worked for defendants in California as non-exempt employees during the Class Period. (Agreement, P. 5.) "PAGA Members" means all persons who worked for defendants in California as non-exempt employees during the PAGA Period. (Agreement, P. 16.) The Class consists of approximately 4,464 Class Members who collectively worked an estimated total of 532,442 workweeks. (Bradley decl., P. 15.)

The non-revisionary gross settlement amount is $250,000.00 and is inclusive of payments to the class, class counsels' fees, class counsels' costs, settlement administration costs, representative enhancement payment to plaintiff, and payment of PAGA penalties. (Agreement, P. 12.) The parties agreed to the following payments from the gross settlement amount: An "Enhancement Payment" to O'Brien of $10,000.00 (Agreement, P. 32.); Attorneys' Fees of not more than $83,333.33 (one-third of the gross settlement), and legal costs of not more than $20,000.00 (Agreement, P. 31.); Settlement Administration Costs estimated to be $26,650.00 to ILYM Group, Inc. (ILYM) (Agreement, P. 33.); PAGA penalties in the amount of $25,000.00 to be paid 65 percent to the LWDA and 35 percent to the individual PAGA members. (Agreement, P. 34.)

Twenty percent of each participating class member's individual class payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims, which are subject to tax withholding and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (Agreement, P. 58.) Eighty percent of each participating class member's individual class payment will be allocated as non-wages, which are not subject to wage withholdings and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Agreement, P. 58.) Within 20 calendar days of the court granting preliminary approval of the settlement, defendants will deliver the Class List to ILYM and to class counsel. (Agreement, P. 41.)

The Court has carefully analyzed the terms of the settlement, including the risks involved, the nature and scope of the release it requires of absent class members, the qualifications of class counsel, and the representative plaintiff. The Court finds, generally, that the agreement is within the range of acceptable settlements. Substantial investigation and discovery was conducted, giving rise to an informed settlement considering the risks of further litigating the action through trial. The case involves experienced class counsel, who believe the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members. The settlement was achieved through extensive arms-length negotiations and was not collusive.

The proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval is attached as Exhibit A to the agreement. "If the court has certified the action as a class action, notice of the final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the court. The notice must contain an explanation of the proposed settlement and procedures for class members to follow in filing written objections to it and in arranging to appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections to the proposed settlement." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.769(f).) " ' "The principal purpose of notice to the class is the protection of the integrity of the class action process. . .." ' " [Citation.] " 'The notice ' " 'must fairly apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed compromise and of the options open to the dissenting class members.' " ' " [Citation.] A class action settlement notice should present information neutrally, simply, and understandably. The notice should allow class members to evaluate a proposed settlement.

Notice should describe the formula or plan for computing individual settlement class member recoveries." (Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.) The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval is sufficient and complies with all applicable requirements.

The motion asks the court for an order provisionally certifying the settlement class. The class is ascertainable from defendants' records and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class, and there is a well-defined community of interest among its members with respect to the subject matter of the litigation. It appears to the court that the claims of the class representative are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class, and that she is positioned to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members.

It also appears to the court that proposed class counsel is experienced and qualified in wage and hour class litigation and will properly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class. The court further finds that the PAGA claim class is appropriate and the terms of the PAGA settlement are, generally, fair and reasonable. The motion for preliminary approval will be granted.

Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro Case Number