LAGPACAN vs BIG JOE CALIFORNIA NORTH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

25CV122747: LAGPACAN vs BIG JOE CALIFORNIA NORTH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Ruben Lagpacan (Plaintiff) CRS# 164065279641 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/03/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Ruben Lagpacan (Plaintiff) CRS# 164065279641 scheduled for 08/18/2026 is continued to 09/22/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The motion of plaintiffs for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED.

The court ORDERS that the parties must file any brief or amended settlement agreement that addresses the concerns at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.

Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, clarified that in a case such as this there are three types of claims: (1) claims that the named plaintiff asserts on their individual behalf; (2) claims that the named plaintiff asserts as agent or proxy of the LWDA; and (3) claims that the named plaintiff asserts as a representative of the absent class members, which are the claims that the absent class members could have asserted on their own individual selves. The releases in a case with individual, class, and PAGA claims must be consistent with the nature of the three types of claims that the case asserts.

The court ORDERS that the parties must file any brief or amended settlement agreement that addresses the concerns at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.

ISSUE #1 - RELEASE OF CLAIMS BY NAMED PLAINTIFF

The Agreement releases the claims of the named plaintiffs, which can include a Civil Code 1542 waiver. (Agt 5.1) This is adequate.

ISSUE #2 - RELEASE OF CLAIMS BY MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.

The members of the class release claims arising out of the claims in the complaint where the named plaintiffs are typical and can adequately represent the class. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 537-538.) (Agt 5.2) This is adequate.

ISSUE #3 – RELEASE OF LWDA’S CLAIMS BY PLAINTIFF UNDER PAGA. Under the PAGA, a private plaintiff brings an action as proxy or agent of the LWDA. “An employee plaintiff suing ... under the [PAGA] does so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies.” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81.) (See also Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664; Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1116.) The named plaintiff as proxy and agent of the LWDA’s claims is releasing the LWDA’s claims.

The “Aggrieved Employees” or “PAGA Class Members” do not release 25CV122747: LAGPACAN vs BIG JOE CALIFORNIA NORTH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Ruben Lagpacan (Plaintiff) CRS# 164065279641 in Department 21 PAGA claims. Only persons who have exhausted the PAGA notice procedure and are authorized to represent the LWDA can release the LWDA’s claims. The agreement improperly states: “Plaintiff as an authorized representative of any individual on behalf of the LWDA.” (Agt para 5.3) This is not adequate.

The scope of the LWDA’s release is limited to the scope of the PAGA notice letter. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1192-1196.) The Agreement suggests that the LWDA is releasing “claims for civil penalties under PAGA based on the facts, theories and allegations described in the PAGA Notice.” (Agt para 5.3) This is adequate.

ISSUE #4. RESIDUAL BENEFICIARY

The agreement states that the residual will go to Legal Aid at Work. This is consistent with CCP 384. Counsel have provided the CCP 382.4 information. This is adequate.

ISSUE #5. NUMBER OF DAYS TO CASH CHECKS / SECOND DISTRIBUTION

The agreement states that the check cashing period is 180 days. (Agt 4.4.1.) The court finds that 120 days is an adequate time for absent class members to cash the checks. That permits counsel and the court to more quickly determine whether a second distribution to the persons who cashed the first checks is appropriate. The Agreement must state that residue will not be distributed to the cy pres beneficiary until after Court approval of a final accounting. This is not adequate.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.