Apodaca v. Kwan Wo Ironworks, Inc.

On 4/21/2026, Plaintiff filed his FAC in the present action. The FAC differs from the Complaint primarily in that the FAC alleges a new Ninth Cause of Action for PAGA penalties.

However, Defendant presents evidence that on 3/6/2026, Plaintiff signed a Confidential 26CV170604: APODACA, vs KWAN WO IRONWORKS, INC. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Kwan Wo Ironworks, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 776647256651 in Department 512 Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) purporting to settle all employment-related claims Plaintiff alleged or could have alleged against Defendant in the Discrimination Action. Section 7 et seq. of the Settlement Agreement contains broad releases of future or additional liability by Plaintiff including at § 7.2, stating in relevant part:

“The Released Claims include, but are not limited to any claims, causes of action, rights, actions, suits, charges, or disputes that have been or could be asserted against any of the Released Parties: (a) arising out of, in connection with, or in any way related to Employee’s application for employment with the Employer, employment with the Employer and/or the termination of Employee’s employment from the Employer; and (b) in connection with any term or condition of Employee’s employment with the Employer, including but not limited to any and all compensation, salaries, wages, minimum wage, overtime, holiday pay, bonuses, commissions, pay, allowances, monies, meal and rest period violations or premiums, off the clock work, expenses/reimbursements, wage statements, employee benefits, sick/vacation pay, severance pay, retention pay, paid leave benefits, any other wage and hour related claims, and any other benefits, penalties, interest, damages, and promises related to the same.

Without limiting the foregoing, and by way of examples only, the Released Claims also extend to any and all claims for alleged the Unfair Business Practices Act/Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Civil Code, the applicable California Wage Order(s), and the California Private Attorneys General Act (to the extent permitted by law) Employee acknowledges and agrees, that Employee is no longer an aggrieved employee following execution and completion of the terms contained within the Agreement, and that Employee specifically acknowledges that Employee has waived any right to bring a representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of other aggrieved employees, and that this waived right is not included within the claims described below in Section 7.4.” (Arce Dec.

Exh. 1 [bold in original].)

Thus, Defendant’s repeated assertions that Plaintiff settled the Discrimination Action and then filed the present action are inaccurate. Plaintiff plainly filed the present action before agreeing to settle the Discrimination Action. However, Plaintiff presents no evidence, for example, a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel in the Discrimination Action regarding when settlement negotiations commenced, to support a finding that Defendant knew about the present action or Plaintiff’s claims therein when it began to negotiate a settlement of the Discrimination Action. Moreover, most competent employment defense attorneys would seek a broad release of the type contained in the Settlement Agreement in exchange for a settlement payment in order to bar any future employment related claims that the plaintiff could have brought in the action to be settled or might attempt to bring later.

Plaintiff’s counsel in the present action asserts that it had no knowledge of the settlement of the Discrimination Action until 3/23/2026, implicitly because Plaintiff never told them. Plaintiff’s counsel is silent whether they knew about Plaintiff’s Discrimination Action prior to 3/23/2026, and it is possible that Plaintiff did not tell either of his respective attorneys in the two actions about the other action. This is the most likely explanation why Plaintiff’s counsel in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV170604: APODACA, vs KWAN WO IRONWORKS, INC. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Kwan Wo Ironworks, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 776647256651 in Department 512 Discrimination Action did not seek to remove wage and hour and PAGA claims from the Settlement Agreement’s release provisions for what was not a particularly large $17,000 settlement payment by Defendant. (Arce Dec. Exh. 1.) Defendant on the Demurrer presents no evidence that it actually tendered the Discrimination Action settlement amount to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff in Opposition does not contend that he did not receive the Discrimination Action settlement amount.

Plaintiff in Opposition to the Demurrer effectively concedes that the above-described releases in the Settlement Agreement extinguish all of Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims against Defendant and thereby also extinguish his standing to serve as a class representative or a PAGA aggrieved employee with standing to bring PAGA claims. Instead, Plaintiff contends that he and his counsel should be permitted to conduct targeted pre-certification discovery for the purpose of locating potential new class representative plaintiffs or aggrieved employees with standing to assert PAGA representative claims.

However, Plaintiff presents no evidence regarding his ability to provide his attorneys in the present action with information regarding the identities of other current and former employees employed by Defendant in California as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee during the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded in the initial Complaint (wage and hour class action) and FAC (PAGA claims).

Nevertheless, the cases cited by Plaintiff, particularly Pirjada v. Sup.Ct. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1074, cited repeatedly by Plaintiff, support the proposition that the law favors pre-certification discovery to replace a subsequently disqualified class plaintiff and that the Court has discretion in deciding whether or not to allow pre-certification discovery for this purpose and the specific pre-certification discovery that would be appropriate under the totality of the circumstances.

The Court finds that unidentified class members have an interest in having their alleged wage and hour claims litigated but also have a privacy interest in not being contacted by Plaintiff’s counsel directly to inquire about their willingness to serve as class and/or PAGA representatives. Pirjada, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at 1087 states in relevant part:

“[A]lthough it did not do so, in the circumstances presented here it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the superior court to have acted to safeguard the rights of potential class members by granting the motion to compel and requiring [defendant] Pacific National to provide names and contact information using the third party administrator, opt-out procedure approved by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.4th 360, as was done, for example, in Best Buy, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th 772, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 575 and CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 441.”

The Court approves of this procedure. The Puerto and Belaire-West cases cited by Plaintiff for the proposition that the Pioneer Electronics procedure would be an abuse of discretion under the present circumstances are factually inapposite, because both involved pre-certification discovery to obtain information from witnesses where there was no valid challenge to the standing of the class representative plaintiffs to represent the class, as is plainly the situation here, particularly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV170604: APODACA, vs KWAN WO IRONWORKS, INC. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Kwan Wo Ironworks, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 776647256651 in Department 512 where Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he cannot provide information about other class members to his attorneys. (See Plaintiff’s Moving MPA on Motion to Conduct Discovery at 11:20-12:18.) The Court finds that potential class members should have the right to opt-in if they wish to become named class representative plaintiffs in the present action.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Pre-Certification Discovery and ORDERS as follows:

Within ten (10) days of the date on which the final Order on this Motion to Conduct Discovery enters the record Plaintiff shall file with the Court and serve on Defendant a proposed class notice letter complying with the requirements of Best Buy, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at 775-778. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the proposed class notice letter, and either party may seek ex parte relief if there are disputes regarding the contents of the proposed letter.

Within fifteen (15) days of the date on which the final Order on this Motion to Conduct Discovery enters the record Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with the name of a third-party administrator of Plaintiff’s choosing. Plaintiff or his legal counsel will be solely responsible for paying the third-party administrator’s fees. (See CashCall, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at 283.)

Within twenty-five (25) days of the date on which the final Order on this Motion to Conduct Discovery enters the record Defendant shall provide Plaintiff’s designated third-party administrator with a list of the names, mailing addresses and telephone numbers of all potential class members as identified in FAC ¶¶ 2 and 24.)

Within ten (10) days of the date on which the third-party administrator receives the class member mailing address list from Defendant, the administrator shall mail the class notice letter to all class members.

Class members shall have thirty-five (35) days from mailing of the class notice letter to respond to the administrator or to contact Plaintiff’s counsel directly, if they wish to do so.

Plaintiff shall file and serve any Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint naming a new plaintiff(s) to the action at least five (5) days before the Wednesday, 10/28/2026 Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal hearing. Plaintiff shall provide an electronic courtesy copy of any such moving papers to on the date of filing and service.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV170604: APODACA, vs KWAN WO IRONWORKS, INC. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Kwan Wo Ironworks, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 776647256651 in Department 512 the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free