DELINDA MACUT VS. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC19580451 - September 4, 2025 Hearing date: September 4, 2025 Case number: CGC19580451 Case title: DELINDA MACUT VS. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC19580451 | Case Title: | | DELINDA MACUT VS. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Individual And Representative Paga Claims | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday, September 4, 2025, line 1 PLAINTIFF DELINDA MACUT'S Motion To Dismiss Individual And Representative Paga Claims (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Plaintiff Delinda Macut moves to dismiss this action with prejudice as to her individual claims and without prejudice as to her representative PAGA claims. The motion is continued for hearing to September 25, 2025 and Macut is ordered to file a supplemental brief and declaration as stated herein.

Plaintiff brought this case as a PAGA action alleging violations of Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. She has reached a settlement of her individual claims with the defendants. She contends that the parties in another case, Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) No. 3:15CV05128, have reached a global settlement that "likely" encompasses the claims of aggrieved employees of this action. (Dosaj Dec. para. 3.)

Labor Code 2699, subdivision (s)(2), provides that "The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court." This case is a civil action filed pursuant to PAGA and therefore any settlement of it must be approved by the court and submitted to LWDA.

Macut provides no proof that LWDA has been notified of her settlement and abandonment of her representative claims. Moreover, Macut provides insufficient information for this court to approve the settlement. There is no carveout in the statutory language where representative claims are dismissed without prejudice; what triggers application of the review provision is that the case was filed as a PAGA representative claim.

A trial court is required under sec. 2699(s)(2) to "scrutinize whether, in resolving the action, a PAGA plaintiff has adequately represented the state's interests, and hence the public interest." (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 89 [disapproved in part on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, 684].) If indeed the absent aggrieved employees' claims are resolved by Lawson, the settlement here may be fair and reasonable, and the state's interests adequately represented, but the court cannot ascertain that based on an assurance that another settlement "likely" covers those claims.

The court continues the motion for hearing to September 25, 2025. No later than five court days prior to the hearing, Macut is ordered to provide supplemental briefing including a declaration that attaches whatever documents from Lawson or other cases are necessary for the court to conclude that there is adequate consideration of the interests of absent aggrieved employees. Macut must also provide proof that LWDA has been notified. (END OF TENTATIVE RULING PART 1 SEE PART 2) = (302/CVA) | |