Gregory Vancil v. PipeDreams Ventures, Inc.

Gregory Vancil v. PipeDreams Ventures, Inc., 24CVP-0226

Hearing: Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement

Date: May 19, 2026

PipeDreams Ventures, Inc. dba as Wighton’s Plumbing, Heating, & Air (PipeDreams or Defendant) employed Gregory Vancil (Vancil or Plaintiff) from approximately February 2024 through May 2024. (Mankin Dec., p. 16, Ex. A.)

On July 15, 2024, Vancil filed this action against PipeDreams asserting claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). On August 19, 2024, the parties participated in a mediation and reached a global settlement of the Action. (Mankin Dec., ¶ 10.)

Before the Court is Vancil’s motion for approval of the PAGA settlement. The Court’s record does not reflect that notice of the motion was served on PipeDreams’s counsel. However, PipeDreams’ Case Management Statement filed on May 5, 2026, acknowledges that the motion is on calendar on May 19, 2026. (Case Management Statement, at ¶ 6.b. [“This matter settled at the August 19, 2025, mediation. The parties have an approval hearing on calendar for May 19, 2026.”].) Plaintiff served the LWDA with the settlement on March 31, 2026. (Mankin Dec., ¶ 43, Ex. D.)

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 proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) 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 that may be available to employees suing for individual violations. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381.) “In a lawsuit brought under the act, the employee plaintiff represents the same legal right and interest as state labor law enforcement agencies—namely, recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the Labor Workforce Development Agency.” (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.)

II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The terms of the PAGA settlement provide that PipeDreams shall pay $125,000.00. (Mankin Dec., ¶ 29.) Costs to be deducted from that amount are: (1) attorneys’ fees of $41,666.66 (1/3 of the gross settlement amount); (2) attorneys’ litigation costs of $20,819.47; (3) settlement administration costs of $2,500.00; (4) Plaintiff’s service award of $5,000.00; (5) $55,013.87 in PAGA penalties, which will be allocated 75% ($41,260.40) to the LWDA and the remaining 25% ($13,753.47) to the Aggrieved Employees. (Id.)

“Aggrieved Employees” is defined as “all current and former nonexempt (hourly paid) employees by Defendant, Wighton’s Plumbing, Heating & Air, in California during the PAGA Period.” (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 24, ll. 11-13.) The “PAGA Period” is the period from May 9, 2023, through October 27, 2025. (Id., at p. 26, ll. 19-23.) Plaintiff estimates that there are seventy (70) Aggrieved Employees who worked approximately one thousand (1,000) eligible pay periods for PipeDreams during the PAGA Period. (Id., p. 25, ll. 8-9.)

The gross settlement is non-reversionary. (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 25, ll. 26-27.) The PAGA penalties to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees will be paid on a pro rata basis “according to the number of Eligible Pay Periods worked in the PAGA Period.” (Id., p. 25, ll. 18-20.)

The Settlement Agreement has an escalator clause that allows PipeDreams to either set the end date for the PAGA period or increase the amount of settlement “should the total number of Eligible Pay Periods exceed 1,100 (which is 10% more than Defendant’s representation). (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 25, ll. 8-14.) If the end date is changed or the settlement amount is increased, any increased payments will be subject to Court approval. (Id., pp. 32, ll. 21-28; 33, ll. 1-2.)

The Aggrieved Employees will not release claims or remedies other than civil penalties asserted in the Complaint and PAGA notices. (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 26, ll. 7-20; see Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.)

III. Reasonableness of the Settlement

Plaintiff’s counsel reports that the parties conducted informal discovery and exchanged information and documentation regarding the Released PAGA Claims. (Mankin Dec., ¶ 33.) Plaintiff’s counsel believes the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id.) “Defendant and Defense Counsel also agree that the settlement is fair and in the best interest of the LWDA and Aggrieved Employees.” (Id.)

“In preparation for the mediation, the Parties informally exchanged documents and information that allowed both sides to calculate the potential damages and evaluate potential risk, including policies and procedures pertaining to each claim alleged, and statistics relating to the number of current and former employees, number of shifts, pay periods worked and other things. Defendant also provided their written policies and practices and a robust sampling of payroll and

timekeeping records for Class Members. This information enabled both parties to take a deep dive into the claims. Additionally, during this process, Plaintiff and his counsel analyzed, researched, and investigated the potential issues, including matters related to the calculation of damages, trial, and appellate issues and risks.” (Mankin Dec., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff’s counsel calculated penalties for which Defendant is potentially liable.

Minimum Wage: $64,100 Overtime: $78,800 Meal Period: $69,300 Rest Break: $93,400 Labor Code § 204: $93,400 Final Pay: $ 4,600 Wage Statements: $93,400

(Mankin Dec., ¶¶ 19, 20, 21.)

Notwithstanding these estimates, the Court has discretion to reduce the amount of penalties. PipeDreams denies it committed any misconduct, denies all factual allegations and claims alleged against it in this Action. (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 27, ll. 20-25.)

Following a detailed analysis of each claim, including the weight of the evidence, applicable law, and strength of the factual and legal defenses asserted by Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsels estimated PipeDreams’ total exposure for PAGA penalties, on a risk-adjusted basis, at $203,129. (Mankin Dec., ¶ 20.)

The parties attended full day mediation on August 19, 2025, conducted by mediator, Steve Serratore. The parties reached a settlement following arm’s-length negotiations. (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, p. 27, ll. 13-15.) Plaintiff has shown his attorneys are experienced with this type of litigation. (Mankin Dec., ¶¶ 2-6; Carlson Dec., ¶¶ 3-4.)

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

The motion is granted subject to Plaintiff seeking further approval, if either the end date is changed or the settlement amount is increased, resulting in increased payments pursuant to the escalator clause. (Mankin Dec., Settlement Agreement, pp. 32, ll. 21-28; 33, ll. 1-2.)

Plaintiff is directed to submit a copy of this Court’s order approving the PAGA settlement to the LWDA within 10 days after entry of the order. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(3).)

3