JESUS HERRERA GONZALEZ VS. G.A.T. AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC., AN ALABAMA ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Line 4.[Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.]

DEFENDANT GAT AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC.'s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff'S Individual Private Attorneys General Act (Paga) Claim With Prejudice And The Non- Individual Portion Of The Paga Claim Without Prejudice.

The joint request by the parties for an order dismissing Plaintiff Jesus Herrera Gonzalez's individual PAGA claim with prejudice and the representative portion of his PAGA claim without prejudice is granted. The court orders plaintiff to submit notice of his abandonment of representative PAGA claims to the LWDA.

Plaintiff brought this case as a PAGA action alleging violations of Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. After filing, Plaintiff learned of ongoing representative litigation raising the same claims. The parties have now settled Plaintiff's individual claims and seek dismissal only of those claims with prejudice, with the balance of the complaint dismissed without prejudice.

Labor Code, section 2699, subdivision (s)(2), provides that "[t]he 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. The court therefore must approve any settlement reached in this case under the plain language of the statute.

An arms-length settlement reached between an individual plaintiff and defendant is not ordinarily approved by the court, but the cited statute requires the court 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].)

Here, the parties have provided evidence that their resolution of Gonzalez's individual action will not prejudice the absent employees who were also alleged in his complaint to be aggrieved, because those employees' claims are covered by other actions, to wit Marcelina Pereyra v. GAT Airline Ground Support, Inc., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2024-00000064-CU-OE- CTL, and Ulualofaiga Manu v. GAT Airline Ground Support, Inc., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 24CV005734. The court therefore concludes there is no prejudice to absent employees by the dismissal of their claims in this action without prejudice. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling] =(301/CVA) | |