Rosa Munoz v. Kim Nguyen, et al.

Rosa Munoz v. Kim Nguyen, et al., 20CVP-0027

Hearing: Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement

Date: August 25, 2026

Rosa Munoz (Plaintiff) worked for PCS Unlimited, Inc. (PCS) from approximately June 2018 to approximately June-August 2019 as a store manager. Her job duties included stocking shelves, handling merchandise, working the register, and overseeing subordinate employees. (Declaration of Rosa Munoz (Munoz Dec.), ¶ 2.) She filed this action for wage and hour violations in the form of underpaid wages, including overtime, minimum wage, rest and meal periods on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. She also asserted claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (PAGA). (Munoz Dec., ¶ 3; Declaration of Stan S. Mallison (Mallison Dec.), ¶ 2.)

Based on review of timekeeping and payroll data produced in the case, Plaintiff’s counsel determined the case was not suitable for class treatment as Plaintiff would not be able to establish the numerosity element. (Mallison Dec., ¶ 3.) On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff and two of the defendants of record attended a mandatory settlement conference before Court-appointed neutral Christopher C. Lewi. After a full day of contentious, arm’s-length negotiation, that conference resulted in a settlement. (Mallison Dec., ¶ 6.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of the PAGA Settlement. The settlement agreement is attached to the Mallison Dec. as Exhibit 1 and the parties are Plaintiff, PCS, and Ahn Nguyen. PCS and Ahn Nguyen are collectively referred to as Settling Defendants. There is no evidence that the remaining defendants of record, i.e., Kim Nguyen, My Ha, Meijohn Bahn, and Rufat Chunchaliev, have been dismissed from the action or attended the settlement conference, are parties to the Settlement Agreement, or are being released or are releasing any claims or defenses. Nor were the non-settling defendants served with the moving papers.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Order and Judgment states that the order is a “final judgment as to Defendants in this action, pursuant to Code 577 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, operating as a full release and discharge of claims encompassed by the parties’ Settlement,” but several defendants are not parties to the settlement.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(2) provides that the “court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state

labor laws.” Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [disapproved on other grounds in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) Many of the factors relevant to evaluate class action settlements, such as “the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount” can be “useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement.” (Id.)

However, the civil penalties a PAGA plaintiff may recover on the state’s behalf are distinct from the statutory damages or penalties that may be available to employees suing for individual violations. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381.) A reasonable settlement is measured by civil penalties a state labor law enforcement agency would assess and recover. (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.)

A proposed settlement of PAGA claims shall be submitted to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) at the same time that it is submitted to the Court. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) Plaintiff has provided the Settlement Agreement to the LWDA. (Mallison Decl. ¶ 23.)

II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The terms of the PAGA settlement provide that Settling Defendants shall pay $175,000. Costs to be deducted from that amount are: (1) attorneys’ fees of $70,000. (Forty percent of the Gross Settlement Amount); (2) attorney legal costs not to exceed $10,000; (3) $10,000 to Plaintiff as a service award; (4) $5,000 to Plaintiff for individual claims; (5) $2,250 in settlement administration costs; (5) $77,750 in PAGA penalties which will be allocated 75% ($58,312.50) to the LWDA and the remaining 25% ($19,437.50) to the Allegedly Aggrieved Employees. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 1; Motion, p. 3, lns. 1-11.)

“Allegedly Aggrieved Employees” are nonexempt employees who worked during the period from October 22, 2018 to August 13, 2025. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 1.f.) Plaintiff estimates there are 37 Allegedly Aggrieved Employees. (Mallison Dec., ¶ 3.)

The gross settlement is non-reversionary. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 14.) The PAGA penalties to be paid to the Allegedly Aggrieved Employees will be paid on a pro rata basis according to the number of pay periods for each. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 1.f.)

With regard to the Allegedly Aggrieved Employees the only claims or remedies released are civil penalties asserted in the complaint and PAGA notices. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 6.) Plaintiff, by contrast, is waiving Civil Code section 1542 and releasing penalty claims whether known or unknown. (Mallison Dec., Ex. 1, § 4.)

III. Reasonableness of the Settlement

This action was litigated for five years and discovery was conducted. Plaintiff’s counsel reports Plaintiff obtained complete timekeeping and payroll information and had it analyzed by database

expert Aaron Woolfson. Plaintiff was prepared to proceed to trial on Plaintiff’s PAGA claim and Plaintiff’s individual claim. (Malllison Dec., ¶ 4.) The settlement was reached after a full day of contentious, arm’s-length negotiation with Court-appointed neutral Christopher C. Lewi. (Mallison Dec., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff has shown that her attorneys are experienced with this type of litigation. (Mallison Dec., ¶¶ 7-15.) She has also established she is qualified to serve as PAGA representative and a basis for the service award. (Munoz Dec., ¶¶ 3-11.) Plaintiff provides evidence that $5,000 for her personal claims is reasonable. (Munoz Dec., ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff’s counsel estimates the defendants’ maximum potential liability at $741,778, but explains such recovery is unlikely for many reasons, including that the defendants were expected to attempt to defeat the meal period violation presumption through use of eye-witness testimony and that the Court has discretion to reduce and/or assess lower penalties, and to deny stacking and/or cumulative penalties. Plaintiff’s counsel concludes that given the unlikelihood of recovering penalties for cumulative penalties for each statutory violation as well as the defenses asserted and litigation risks the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of the PAGA civil penalties claims. (Mallison Dec., ¶¶ 18, 19, 20.)

The settlement amount is nearly 24% of the estimated damage amount.

Having reviewed the claims at issue, Plaintiff’s arguments in the memorandum of points and authorities, and the evidence submitted in support of the motion, the Court finds the proposed settlement is reasonable.

IV. Ruling

Plaintiff should be prepared to address the status of the case with regard to the non-settling defendants. If further filings or proceedings are necessary for a final resolution of the action the motion will be continued. If not, the Court intends to grant the motion.

3