Fernandez v. Suddarth Relocation Systems of Northern California, Inc., et al.

Line 4 (Calendar Line 18)

Case Name: Fernandez v. Suddath Relocation Systems of Northern California, Inc. et al. Case No.: 23CV421591

This is a putative class and representative action arising from alleged wage and hour violations. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion and sets a compliance hearing for February 24, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 19.

I. Legal Standard

“In general, questions whether a settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

The trial court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. (Id. at p. 245.)

The most important factor is the strength of the plaintiffs’ case on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.)

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to” the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

Where, as here, a PAGA notice is filed before June 19, 2024, seventyfive percent of any penalties recovered go to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), leaving the remaining twenty-five percent for the employees.

The trial court must “determine independently whether a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable,” to protect “the interests of the public and the LWDA in the enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76-77.)

A PAGA settlement may be substantially discounted, and courts often exercise their discretion to award PAGA penalties below the statutory maximum. (Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504, 529; Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1213.)

II. Terms and Administration of Settlement

A. Provisions of the Settlement

This case has been settled on behalf of the following class: [[A]ll current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendant Suddath Van Lines, Inc. in California at any time during the Class Period [August 25, 2019 through May 31, 2024] (Declaration of Charles T. Sweeny in Support of Preliminary Approval, Ex. 1 (“Agreement”), ¶¶ 7(d), 7(f).)

The settlement includes a subset group of PAGA Employees, defined as: “all current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendant Suddath Van Lines, Inc. in California at any time during the PAGA Period [June 20, 2022 through May 31, 2024].” (Id. at ¶¶ 7(y), 7(aa).)

Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $475,000, an amount that includes: attorney fees of up to 35 percent of the gross settlement amount ($166,250); litigation costs not to exceed $15,000; a PAGA penalties allocation of $50,000 (75 percent of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent of which will be paid to PAGA Employees as individual PAGA payments); a service payment of up to $10,000 to Plaintiff; and settlement administration costs up to $7,500. (Motion, pp. 3-4; Agreement, ¶¶ 7(q), 11, 12, 13, 14.)

The net settlement amount will be distributed to participating class members on a pro-rata basis according to the number of workweeks they worked during the Class Period, and individual PAGA payments will be distributed according to the number of workweeks worked during the PAGA Period. (Agreement, ¶¶ 15, 16.)

The Agreement provides that Simpluris, Inc. (“Simpluris”) will serve as settlement administrator.

The parties have also agreed to designate Legal Aid at Work as cy pres recipient in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384, and the Court approves this designation.

In exchange for the settlement, the class members agree to release Defendant and related entities and persons from “all claims, actions, or cause of action alleged in the Class Complaint or that could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the Class 23 Complaint, arising during the Class Period....” (Agreement, ¶¶ 7(ee), 7(gg).)

PAGA Employees will be deemed to release Defendant and related entities and persons “all claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. that were alleged in the PAGA Notice and PAGA Complaint in the PAGA Action or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the factual allegations in the PAGA Notice and PAGA Complaint in the PAGA Action, arising during the PAGA Period....” (Id. at ¶¶ 7(ff), 7(gg).)

The release provisions are appropriately tailored to the factual allegations of the operative pleading. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.)

In its order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, the Court approved Simpluris as settlement administrator.

On February 13, 2026, Defendant delivered class data to Simpluris with 96 individuals on the Class List. (Declaration of Bentley Conn on Behalf of Simpluris (“Conn Decl.”) ¶ 5.)

On February 25, 2026, Simpluris mailed Class Notices to the 96 individuals on the Class List and later re-mailed four class notices to updated addresses. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.)

For the Class Notices mailed on February 25, 2026, the deadline to request an exclusion, submit an objection, or submit a dispute was April 11, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

The deadline for the re-mailed class notices was April 27, 2026. (Ibid.)

As of the date of Mr. Conn’s declaration, April 21, 2026, Simpluris had received one request for exclusion, zero objections, and zero disputes. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-15.)

It does not appear that Simpluris has provided a supplemental declaration advising whether it received any requests for exclusion, objections, or disputes after the date of Mr. Conn’s declaration but before the deadline for those receiving the re-mailed class notices.

Nevertheless, according to Mr. Conn’s declaration, only four individuals were sent the re-mailed notices.

Simpluris estimates the average individual settlement share will be approximately $2,430.88. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

The notice process has now been completed.

At preliminary approval, the Court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable.

Given that there are no objections, it finds no reason to deviate from that finding now.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval.

III. Service Award, Attorney Fees and Costs

Plaintiff seeks a service award of $10,000.

An incentive award is appropriate if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit.

Criteria courts may consider in determining whether to make an incentive award include: 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the litigation and; 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation.

These “incentive awards” to class representatives must not be disproportionate to the amount of time and energy expended in pursuit of the lawsuit. (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1394-1395, internal punctuation and citations omitted.)

Service awards are particularly appropriate where a plaintiff undertakes a significant reputational risk in bringing an action against an employer. (Covillo v. Specialty’s Café (N.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29837, at *29.)

Plaintiff has provided a declaration describing her participation in this action and her understanding of her responsibilities as class representative, although she has not provided an estimate of the number of hours she has spent working on this litigation.

Plaintiff’s attorneys represent that Plaintiff has spent a substantial amount of time and effort working on this litigation. (Declaration of Vartan Madoyan in Support of Final Approval (“Madoyan Decl.”), ¶ 20; Declaration of Charles T. Sweeney in Support of Final Approval (“Sweeney Decl.”), ¶ 20.)

Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court finds that a service award is justified and the amount requested is appropriate.

Therefore, the service award is approved in the amount requested.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an attorney fee award of $166,250 (35 percent of the gross settlement amount) to be split between the two firms. (Memorandum, pp. 13:12–23:7; Sweeny Decl., ¶¶ 6–14; Madoyan Decl., ¶¶ 5–13.)

Plaintiff’s attorneys state that the combined lodestar for the services of the two firms is $200,790. (Memorandum, p. 21:9–13; Sweeney Decl., ¶ 12; Madoyan Decl., ¶ 13.)

The benefits achieved by the settlement justify an award of attorney fees to class counsel.

The Court approves an attorney fee award in the requested amount of $166,250.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys request reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $10,816.34. (Memorandum, pp. 21:23–22:7; Madoyan Decl., ¶ 19 and Ex. 2.)

The Court approves reimbursement of litigation costs in the requested amount.

The settlement administration costs are also approved in the requested amount of $7,000. (See Conn Decl., ¶ 21.)

IV.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion for final approval of the settlement and sets a compliance hearing for February 24, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 19.

The prevailing party shall prepare the order in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

5