Gatica v. Valley Ag, Inc.

c. Community of Interest

“[T]he ‘community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021, internal citations omitted.)

“The focus of the typicality requirement entails inquiry as to whether the plaintiff’s individual circumstances are markedly different or whether the legal theory upon which the claims are based differ from that upon which the claims of the other class members will be based.” (Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 27, 46.)

"[T]he adequacy inquiry should focus on the abilities of the class representative's counsel and the existence of conflicts between the representative and other class members." (Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 644, 669.)

Here, it does appear that there are common questions of law and fact, as all of the proposed class members worked for the same defendant and allegedly suffered the same type of Labor Code violations. Therefore, the proposed class involves common issues of law and fact.

With regard to the requirement of typicality of the representative’s claims, Ms. Gatica’s claims are typical of the rest of the class and she seeks the same relief as the other class members. There is no evidence that she has any conflicts between her interests and the interests of the other class members that would make her unsuitable to represent their interests. Therefore, plaintiff has shown that Ms. Gatica has claims typical of the other class members.

Plaintiff’s counsel have submitted declarations that establish that they are experienced and qualified to represent the class. Counsel’s declarations discusses their background, education, and experience in class action litigation. Therefore, counsel have met their burden of showing that they are experienced and qualified to represent plaintiff and the other class members here.

d. Superiority of Class Certification

It does appear that certifying the class would be superior to any other available means of resolving the disputes between the parties. Absent class certification, each employee of defendant would have to litigate their claims individually, which would result in wasted time and resources relitigating the same issues and presenting the same testimony and evidence. Class certification will allow the employees’ claims to be resolved in a relatively efficient and fair manner. (Sav-On Drugs Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 340.) Therefore, plaintiff has shown that class certification is the superior means of resolving her claims.

Conclusion: The court intends to grant certification of the class for the purpose of settlement.

2. Settlement

a. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Settlement

“In determining whether a class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the trial court should consider relevant factors, such as ‘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 the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the 13 presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’ The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case.” (Wershba v.

Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244–245, internal citations omitted, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

Here, plaintiff’s counsel has presented a sufficient discussion of the strength of the case if it went to trial, the risks, complexity, and duration of further litigation, and an explanation of why the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the risks of taking the case to trial. Plaintiff’s counsel estimates that defendant faced a maximum potential liability of $827,918 for rest period violations, $1,019,521 for meal period violations, $1,804.250 for inaccurate wage statements, and $15,956,371 for waiting time penalties. In addition, plaintiff estimates that maximum PAGA penalties would have been $1,969,800.

However, there were substantial barriers to recovery, including defendants’ contention that the claims were without merit and were not suitable for class certification. Thus, plaintiff substantially discounted the defendant’s liability based on the inherent risks of trying the class claims. The PAGA claim also carried substantial risks. The parties agreed that it was reasonable to allocate $118,188 to the PAGA claims. The PAGA claims are subject to the same defenses and risks as the other claims, as well as defenses unique to PAGA, the risk that PAGA penalties would not be stacked, and the risk that the court might reduce the penalties in order to avoid duplicative, arbitrary, or oppressive penalties. Therefore, plaintiff has now shown that the settlement is fair, reasonable, or adequate in light of the unique facts and legal issues raised by the plaintiff’s case.

Even though plaintiff has a strong case and defendant’s liability is potentially much higher than $1,800,000, plaintiff reasonably accepted less than the maximum potential liability based on the risks of going to trial, the possibility that she might not be able to establish willful violations of the law, and the danger that the court might reduce the amount of penalties even if plaintiff did prevail at trial. As a result, the court intends to find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable under the circumstances.

b. Proposed Class Notice

The proposed notice appears to be adequate. The notice will provide the class members with information regarding their time to opt out or object, the nature and amount of the settlement, the impact on class members if they do not opt out, the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the service award to the named class representative. As a result, the court intends to find that the proposed class notice is adequate.

3. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney’s fees of $600,000, which is one-third of the gross settlement. Plaintiff’s attorneys have provided their declarations, which describe their education, skill, and experience. However, counsel has not provided any evidence regarding the time they spent on the case or what their hourly rates are. Therefore, plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any information that would allow the court to 14 conduct a lodestar analysis of the requested fees to determine whether they are reasonable in light of the work done on the case. (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 504 [holding that trial court may award fees based on a percentage of the common fund in class actions, but it may also conduct a lodestar cross-check of the request for attorney’s fees in order to confirm the fees are reasonable].) As a result, the court intends to find that plaintiff’s counsel has not adequately supported the request for $600,000 in fees.

In addition, counsel also seeks an award of up to $100,000 in costs. However, counsel has not provided a summary of its actual costs incurred so far in the case, so it is impossible to determine that the request for up to $100,000 in costs is reasonable.

4. Payment to Class Representative

Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of a $10,000 service award to the named plaintiff/class representative, Ms. Gatica. Ms. Gatica has provided a declaration that supports the request for a service award, as she states that he worked closely with plaintiff’s counsel, provided documents, answered questions, and participated in meetings about the case with counsel. Therefore, the court intends to grant preliminary approval of the incentive award to the named plaintiff.

5. Payment to Class Administrator

CPT Group, Inc. will receive up to $69,500 to administer the settlement. The declaration of CPT’s representative includes an estimate for administration services of $69,500. (Exhibit B to Green decl.) As a result, the court intends to grant preliminary approval of the payment to the administrator.

6. PAGA Settlement

Plaintiff proposes to allocate $100,000 of the settlement to the PAGA claims, with 75% of that amount being paid to the LWDA as required by law and the other 25% being paid out to the aggrieved employees. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he gave notice of the settlement to the LWDA on February 18, 2026. (Exhibit E to decl. of Moen.) Therefore, plaintiff’s counsel has shown that he complied with PAGA’s requirement to give notice of the settlement to the LWDA. (See Labor Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).)

Plaintiff’s counsel also states that she believes that paying $100,000 to settle the PAGA claim is fair, reasonable and adequate in light of the substantial risks in litigating the PAGA claims, including the risk that the court might reduce the penalties to avoid an unduly harsh result. Therefore, plaintiff’s counsel has adequately explained why settling the PAGA claims is fair, adequate and reasonable, and the court intends to grant preliminary approval of the PAGA portion of the settlement.

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 15