Justin Abney v. Coastal Tractor

Justin Abney v. Coastal Tractor

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Hearing Date: April 24, 2026

The hearing on Plaintiff Justin Abney’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is CONTINUED to July 31, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14. The continuance allows Plaintiff to submit supplemental documents by July 17 that address the issues raised below.

Revisionary Provision.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator shall send funds from “uncashed and cancelled” checks to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 4.3.3.] However, Code of Civil Procedure section 384 requires that any “unclaimed or abandoned class member funds” be directed to “nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent.” [Code Civ.

Proc. § 384, subd. (b).] Therefore, before the Court rules on this motion, the parties must meet, confer, and ideally agree on an appropriate cy près beneficiary. After identifying the beneficiary, Plaintiff shall amend the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice accordingly so that all references to the transmission of any uncashed Class Member Settlement Checks (and PAGA checks at the parties’ option) to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund are deleted. The Settlement Agreement should be amended to reference distribution to the designated cy près beneficiary. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 4.4.3 and attached Exh.

A, Class Notice, at ¶¶ 3e and 10.] The parties may also, but are not required to, do the same for abandoned or unclaimed PAGA distributions.

Class Notice.

On its face, the Class Notice appears reasonable and advises potential Class Members of their rights under the action. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 1.11 and attached Exh. A, Class Notice.] Although the Class Notice is clearly written, there are a few issues.

1. Class Period.

The Class Notice shall be amended to identify the new end date for the Class Period as identified in the Parties’ Joint Stipulation. It seems that the correct Class Period is May 24, 2020, through January 26, 2026, as stated in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Order accompanying the Joint Stipulation. However, page 3, lines 15-20, of the Joint Stipulation states that the Class Period is “May 4, 2020, through January 26, 2026.”

2. Cy Près Beneficiary.

As noted above, the Notice currently informs potential Class Members and Aggrieved Employees that uncashed checks will be transmitted to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund. The Notice shall be amended to identify the cy près beneficiary where uncashed Individual Class Settlement checks (and PAGA checks at the option of the Parties) will be sent.

3. The June 23, 2026, Deadline to Transmit the Gross Settlement Amount.

There appears to be a timing discrepancy between the proposed date of payment of the Gross Settlement Amount, the distribution of checks to the Class Members and others, and the opt-out period.

The Class Notice and Settlement Agreement require that the Gross Settlement Amount be transmitted no later than June 23, 2026 (or one year after Mediation, which occurred on May 6, 2025 (i.e., May 6, 2026), whichever is later). [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 4.3.] The Settlement Agreement also requires that within 14 days after Defendant Coastal Tractor (“Defendant”) funds the Gross Settlement Amount (i.e., July 7, 2026 if the Gross Settlement Amount is funded on June 23, 2026), the Administrator will mail checks for all Individual Class Payments, all Individual PAGA Payments, the LWDA PAGA Payment, the Administration Expenses Payment, the class Counsel Fees Payment, the Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and the Class Representative Service Payment. [Id. at ¶ 4.4.]

There appears to be a mismatch between the potential opt-out’s ending date and the date the Gross Settlement Amount will be transferred and disbursed. The timeline described in the Settlement Agreement is as follows:

• April 24, 2026, Preliminary Approval Motion Heard; • 15 days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval, Defendant will simultaneously deliver Class Data to Administrator; • No later than 14 days after receiving Class Data, the Administrator will send the Class Notice to all Class Members; and • Requests for Exclusion must be sent no later than 45 days after the Administrator mails the Class Notice (plus an additional 14 days for Class Members whose Notice is re-mailed).

Thus, even if the Court grants preliminary approval on April 24, 2026, the deadlines outlined above would not end until July 7, 2026 (74 days after preliminary approval, assuming each event occurs on the final date of the deadline set forth above) or July 21, 2026 (88 days after preliminary approval, assuming each event occurs on the final date of the deadline set forth above and an additional 14 days are needed for Class Members whose Notice is re-mailed to opt out). This would fall outside the 14-day period after Defendant funds the Gross Settlement Amount when the Administrator is required to mail the checks (i.e., after July 7, 2026).

While the Gross Settlement Amount does not change with opt-outs, the distribution amounts will vary if potential Class Members opt out. Furthermore, if any potential Class Member or Aggrieved Party disputes or challenges the calculation of the number of Workweeks or Pay Periods, those issues must be resolved before distribution.

At the hearing or in their supplemental papers, the parties shall inform the Court whether the June 23, 2026, deadline to transmit the Gross Settlement Amount with a 14-day deadline thereafter for the Administrator to mail the payments to Class Members, Class Counsel, and others is realistic under the circumstances.

4. Recovery of Costs.

The Settlement Agreement does not appear to place an upper limit on the amount of costs that Class Counsel may recover. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 3.2.2.] Plaintiff’s counsel represents that their current costs are estimated to be $16,355.05. [Kim Decl. at ¶ 62.] With no ceiling or limitation on the amount of costs that may be awarded, except that they are “actual and reasonable,” Plaintiff’s counsel shall disclose the amount of costs currently incurred to date as outlined in the motion. Further, the parties shall provide a general estimate for the costs (i.e., how much it will exceed the current estimate of $16,355.05). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court needs only to approve a ceiling on attorneys’ fees and costs.

5. Spanish Version of the Class Notice.

A settlement notice meets due process requirements if it is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and affords them an opportunity to present their objections.” [Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 694-695.] “[P]rovided that the settlement notice satisfies due process, the trial court has broad discretion to determine the specific form and content of the notice and to decide whether notice by first class mail, without any further follow-up by [class counsel], [i]s legally sufficient.” [Ibid.]

Here, the Settlement Agreement states that the Class Notice shall be sent to Class Members in Spanish and English. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 7.4.2.] However, only the English version of the Class Notice accompanies the motion and the draft Settlement Agreement. [Settlement Agreement, Exh. 1 to Kim Decl. at ¶ 1.11 and attached Exh. A, Class Notice.] The Court expects that a Spanish version of the Class Notice will be disseminated to Class Members as the Settlement Agreement requires.

Plaintiff shall provide a copy of the Spanish Class Notice to the Court before the continued hearing.

Representative Service Fee.

Plaintiff requests the Court to approve a payment to the Class Representative of no more than $7,500. Plaintiff states that he actively participated in this litigation by providing substantial supporting documents and information, as well as assisting counsel in developing the necessary information to litigate and settle this case, which has led to a favorable settlement for the putative Class Members. [Plaintiff’s Decl. at ¶¶ 4-12.]

The request for $7,500 exceeds the typical $5,000 award in Monterey County. While the average recovery is about $2,540.30, the amount requested is still three times that amount. [See, e.g., Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 399, 412 (stating that awards 30 or 44 times the average recovery are an abuse of discretion).] Plaintiff estimates he has spent 50 hours on this case. A $7,500 enhancement would amount to approximately $150 per hour of work.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not need to make a final determination on the reasonableness of the requested enhancement award to assess its appropriateness. By the time of the Final Approval, the Court can make a final decision on whether an award of $7,500.00 is justified and whether the request should be granted.

Settlement Administrator.

The Parties seek $5,250 for class administration costs. [Mullins Decl. at ¶ 10.] The Settlement and Motion note that the Parties agreed to a maximum administrative expense of $6,650.00. However, the requested amount appears higher than typical Court awards. Usually, class administrators spend about $30 per class member; with roughly 79 members, the estimated cost per member is $66.46 (i.e., $5,250 ÷ 79).

The parties do not specify in the Motion or elsewhere if they solicited bids from other potential administrators. Therefore, the parties shall inform the Court at the hearing or in their supplemental papers whether they sought additional bids.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING

This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

4