RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al.

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/21/2026 Mark Fickes

The Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement scheduled for 08/25/2026 is continued to 10/08/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, to allow the parties to submit modified documents in accordance with the order below.

Background

Plaintiff Carlos Ivan Rodriguez Jr. alleges that Chrisp Company failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse necessary business expenses, and committed related wageand-hour violations of the Labor Code. (Rodriguez Dec. ¶¶ 3-5.) On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint asserting these violations, including a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals against Defendants Chrisp Company and Robert P. Chrisp. (Mot. at p. 1.) The class claims were later dismissed, Plaintiff’s individual claims were ordered to arbitration, and the PAGA representative claims are all that remain. (Mot. at p. 1.) There are approximately 12 aggrieved employees. (Mot. at p. 1.)

Legal Standard

Plaintiff asserts the PAGA claim as proxy or agent of the State of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). An employee who sues under PAGA does so as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. (ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 185; Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.)

A person asserting a claim on behalf of the LWDA under PAGA must obtain court approval for any settlement. The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of a civil action filed under PAGA, and the proposed settlement must be submitted to the LWDA at the same time it is submitted to the court. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).)

The governing standard is settled. A trial 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 maximize enforcement of the state’s labor laws. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77, disapproved on another ground in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) Court approval is a safeguard that prevents fraud, collusion, and unfairness and protects the interests of the public and the LWDA in the enforcement of state labor laws. (Id. at pp. 76-77.)

In discharging this role, the court conducts an independent assessment of the adequacy of the settlement terms, which requires a record from which the court can discern sufficient information about the amount in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes. (Id. at p. 76; Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518 Cal.App.4th 116, 130-132.) The court must also scrutinize whether, in resolving the action, the PAGA plaintiff has adequately represented the state’s interests, and hence the public interest. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 89.)

Because this action was brought after June 19, 2024, the penalty-allocation amendments enacted in 2024 govern. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (v).) Recovered civil penalties are therefore distributed 65 percent to the LWDA and 35 percent to the aggrieved employees. (Id., subd. (m).) The Settlement’s 65/35 allocation conforms to the current statute, and the Court confirms the allocation on that basis.

The questions presented are whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of PAGA’s purposes, and whether the release, the individual settlement, and the related terms are proper. The Court addresses each in turn.

Settlement Terms

The case settled in March 2026, following direct settlement negotiations that began in September 2025. (Siegel Dec. ¶ 19.) The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) in March and April 2026. (Siegel Dec., Ex. 1.) The case preliminarily settled for a Settlement Fund Amount of $12,000. (Settlement ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorneys’ fees and costs of $67,500, payable separately from the Settlement Fund Amount. (Settlement ¶ 11.) The Settlement provides for an escalator clause if the number of pay periods increases by more than 10 percent. (Settlement ¶ 12.) PAGA penalties are allocated 65 percent of the settlement fund to the LWDA (i.e., $7,800) and 35 percent to the aggrieved employees (i.e., $4,200), with settlement administrator costs of no more than $4,000. (Siegel Dec. ¶ 23; Settlement ¶¶ 9(i), 13, 16.)

The Settlement provides for a per-pay-period value of $16.60 out of a maximum of $100. (Mot. at p. 8.) Each PAGA settlement member will receive a pro rata share of the aggrieved employees’ portion of the settlement fund, based on total eligible pay periods. (Settlement ¶ 16(b).)

Plaintiff notified the LWDA of the settlement. (Siegel Dec. ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. 2A & 2B.)

Fairness, Reasonableness, and Adequacy of the Settlement Amount

On the present record, the settlement amount appears fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes, subject to the parties curing the deficiencies identified below. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.) Plaintiff’s counsel estimates maximum unstacked penalty exposure of approximately $72,500 (725 pay periods at $100 per pay period), reduced to a realistic exposure of approximately $14,020 after risk discounts reflecting the arbitration and PAGA-standing risk, the merits risk as to the other aggrieved employees, and the risk of a substantial penalty reduction at trial. (Siegel Dec. ¶¶ 61-70.) The $12,000 Settlement Fund Amount represents approximately 86 percent of that realistic exposure, and the net PAGA penalties fund

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518 approximates 100 percent of counsel’s estimate of the realistically recoverable penalties. (Mot. at p. 8.) The Court has before it sufficient information about the amount in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes to make this assessment. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 76.) The Court reserves its final adequacy finding pending the parties’ submission of the modified documents ordered below.

Individual Settlement and Adequacy of Representation

A class representative service payment was not sought within the PAGA settlement. Plaintiff did, however, separately negotiate a settlement of his individual claims, including the claims subject to arbitration, for $7,500, in a separate Individual Settlement Agreement. (Siegel Dec., Individual Settlement Agreement; see Settlement ¶ 25 [referencing the Individual Settlement Agreement].) Two issues require attention before the Court can complete its adequacy-of-representation analysis. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 89.)

First, the record is internally inconsistent as to whether the individual settlement is contingent on approval of the PAGA settlement. The Individual Settlement Agreement states that Plaintiff’s settlement is contingent upon the PAGA settlement. (Individual Settlement Agreement at p. 5, ¶ 19.) Plaintiff’s declaration, by contrast, states that his settlement is not contingent on approval of the PAGA settlement and has already been fully effectuated. (Rodriguez Dec. ¶ 13 & fn. 2.) The COURT REQUESTS that Plaintiff’s counsel clarify and reconcile whether the individual settlement is contingent on the PAGA settlement, so that the Court can determine whether any portion of the individual settlement functions as a de facto service or enhancement payment that must be disclosed and evaluated within the PAGA settlement.

Second, a PAGA action is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties, and the aggrieved employees’ share of penalties must be shared pro rata among all aggrieved employees rather than diverted disproportionately to the PAGA plaintiff. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 87.) Here, Plaintiff’s $7,500 individual recovery exceeds the entire $4,200 net PAGA fund allocated to all approximately 12 aggrieved employees combined. The Court does not suggest that Plaintiff may not separately resolve genuinely distinct individual claims, including his FEHA and wrongful-termination claims.

But because the individual settlement was negotiated with the same Defendants during the same period as the representative settlement, the COURT REQUESTS that Plaintiff’s counsel substantiate that the individual settlement did not divert value away from the representative PAGA claims, and explain the basis for the disparity, so that the Court can confirm that Plaintiff has adequately represented the state’s interests. (Id. at p. 89.)

Scope of Release

The scope of the release appears to be too broad. (Settlement ¶ 9(m).)

The proposed order provides that the Released Claims include, but are not limited to, claims for PAGA penalties for alleged violations of Labor Code sections 201, 201.5, 202, 203, 204, 205.5,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518 206, 210, 218.5, 221, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802, as well as all applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, or interest resulting therefrom.

The Released Claims go beyond the claims asserted in the LWDA notice. The proposed release lists violations of Labor Code sections 201, 201.5, 202, 203, 204, 205.5, 206, 210, 218.5, 221, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802, but the LWDA letter identifies only Labor Code sections 203, 204, 206, 210, 226(a), 226.7, 233(c), 510, 512, 1174(d), 1194, 1198, and 2802(a). (Compl., Ex. A.) The Released Claims also broadly purport to include all claims that could have been raised based on the PAGA notice or notices, rather than confining the release to claims fairly encompassed by the LWDA letter dated January 22, 2025.

The Court recognizes that a PAGA release may extend to claims that were or could have been pled based on the same primary right litigated, even if those claims were not expressly listed in the PAGA notice. (Moniz, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 82-84.) The defect here is not that the release reaches unlisted Labor Code sections as such, but that its open-ended “including but not limited to” and “based on the PAGA notice(s)” language is untethered to any primary right fairly encompassed by the January 22, 2025 notice.

A PAGA plaintiff who purports to settle PAGA claims that are not the subject of an adequate LWDA notice letter exceeds his authority to act on behalf of the LWDA and, to that extent, cannot bind the LWDA to a judgment. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1194.) Pre-suit administrative exhaustion requires notice to the LWDA of the specific Labor Code provisions alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation, and a release exceeding that notice cannot bind the LWDA or absent aggrieved employees. (Id. at p. 1193.)

Plaintiff must limit the Released Claims to the Labor Code provisions, facts, and theories fairly encompassed by the January 22, 2025 LWDA notice letter, and must delete the “including but not limited to” language and the reference to claims “based on the PAGA notice(s).” The parties shall rework the definition of the Released Claims in both the Settlement and the proposed order accordingly.

PAGA Release Period

The papers are inconsistent as to the end date of the PAGA Release Period. The Settlement is described in one place as covering January 22, 2024 through January 26, 2026 (Settlement ¶ 2.31), and elsewhere as covering January 22, 2024 through January 27, 2026 (Settlement ¶ 9(1); Mot. at p. 1). The parties shall reconcile this discrepancy and state a single, consistent PAGA Release Period in the Settlement, the proposed order, and the judgment.

Released Parties

The Complaint names two Defendants, Chrisp Company and Robert P. Chrisp, but the Settlement and moving papers refer principally to “Defendant Chrisp Company.” The parties

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518 shall clarify, in the Settlement and the proposed order, the identity of the released party or parties, including whether Robert P. Chrisp is a released party, and shall ensure that the proposed judgment disposes of the PAGA representative claims as to both named Defendants.

Notice to Aggrieved Employees

The Settlement provides for a Court-approved explanatory letter, the “PAGA Notice,” to accompany each aggrieved employee’s settlement check. (Settlement ¶ 16(d); Mot., Ex. A.) The parties shall submit the proposed form of PAGA Notice, conformed to the revised Released Claims and PAGA Release Period, for the Court’s approval with the amended documents.

Residual Funds

The disposition of any uncashed checks shall be paid to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the aggrieved employee. (Settlement ¶ 16(d).) This is adequate.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

PAGA entitles a prevailing employee to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (k)(1).) Plaintiff’s counsel seeks fees and costs actually incurred, up to $67,500, payable separately from the Settlement Fund Amount. (Mot. at p. 10.) Counsel’s lodestar is approximately $216,092.50 for about 293 hours of work, at hourly rates ranging from $250 for the paralegal to $615 to $900 for the attorneys, reflecting a negative lodestar multiplier of approximately 0.31. (Siegel Dec. ¶¶ 85-90, Ex. 3; Villegas Dec. ¶¶ 12-16, Ex. A.) Counsel has provided information regarding its qualifications, experience, the nature of the work performed, and its rates. (Siegel Dec. ¶¶ 5-10; Villegas Dec. ¶¶ 3-11.) Counsel’s rates and hours appear to be reasonable, and the fee request is substantially lower than counsel’s actual lodestar. This reflects adequate compensation.

Settlement Administration Costs

The settlement administration costs are not to exceed $4,000, estimated at $3,944, payable to Xpand Legal Consulting. This is adequate.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONTINUES this motion to October 8, 2026, to permit the parties to cure the deficiencies identified above. On or before September 15, 2026, the parties shall file amended documents in support of the settlement motion that accomplish the following.

1. Limit the Released Claims to the Labor Code provisions, facts, and theories fairly encompassed by the January 22, 2025 LWDA notice letter, and remove the “including but not limited to” language and the reference to claims “based on the PAGA notice(s),” in both the Settlement and the proposed order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518

2. Clarify and reconcile whether Plaintiff’s individual settlement is contingent on approval of the PAGA settlement, and substantiate that the individual settlement did not divert value from the representative PAGA claims.

3. Reconcile the conflicting PAGA Release Period end dates, January 26, 2026 versus January 27, 2026, and state a single, consistent period.

4. Clarify the identity of the released party or parties, including whether Robert P. Chrisp is released, and conform the proposed judgment to dispose of the claims against both named Defendants.

5. Submit the proposed form of PAGA Notice, conformed to the revised Released Claims and PAGA Release Period.

6. Correct the caption and internal references in the moving papers, which inconsistently identify the assigned judicial officer and department. The assigned officer is the Honorable Mark Fickes, Department 518.

---

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

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

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@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."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV107769: RODRIGUEZ vs CHRISP COMPANY, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 518 Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)