Foulks vs. Waste Management

202200562834CUOE: Foulks vs. Waste Management

analysis of the estimated total maximum value of each of the individual claims, the resulting total maximum estimated value, and an explanation of discounts applied to account for risk and other assumptions, with a resulting estimated realistic case value. Such information is helpful to ensure, at a minimum, that counsel has given due thought to the value of the case, the risks of proceeding, and whether the settlement is fair to the absent class members who will be bound by the settlement.

2. The total allocation of $60,000 to the PAGA settlement amounts to five percent of the gross settlement. The Court requires justification for any approval that allocates less than 7.5% of the gross settlement amount to the PAGA settlement.

3. The information is insufficient to allow for an evaluation of typicality for purposes of class certification for settlement purposes. Plaintiff asserts he was an hourly-paid, non-exempt heavy equipment operator with Defendant and that he initially consulted with an attorney concerning his belief that he had been discriminated against based on his race and wrongfully terminated. Plaintiff filed this case based on his belief that he and the putative class “were subject to Defendant’s unlawful labor policies and practices.” He then asserts that “[t]hese grievances are set forth in detail in the operative Complaint and my letter to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency[.]” (Foulks Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Plaintiff’s declaration is vague and insufficient. For example, Plaintiff does not assert that he was not paid for overtime hours worked; that he was not provided with compliant meal or rest periods; that he did not receive accurate, itemized wage statements; or that he suffered harm from the other alleged Labor Code violations. A reference to the PAGA notice and the operative complaint are insufficient for purposes of determining whether Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class.

4. Approval of litigation costs of up to $75,000 is sought. The costs are excessive, even for a class this size. At the continued hearing, the Court requires submission of an itemized list of costs, grouped by category. This can be provided in the supplemental declaration. In connection with the final approval hearing, the Court will also require production of invoices to account for costs. In the case of expert fees, an invoice must provide sufficient detail for the Court to evaluate the reasonableness of costs claimed to include the name and qualifications of the individual who performed the work; the date the work was performed in each instance; a description of the work performed; and the time spent in each instance.

5. Approval of administrative costs of $11,500 is sought. No estimate or basis for this claimed amount was provided.

6. The “Released Parties” are defined in a standard way to include Defendant and its past, present, and future related entities, such as parents, subsidiaries, etc., and Defendant’s officers, directors, employees, etc. But at the end of that description is included the following language: “and all other persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them that could be liable for the Released Class Claims and/or Released PAGA Claims.” (SA, ¶ 1(cc).) This definition appears to be internally inconsistent.

202200562834CUOE: Foulks vs. Waste Management

7. The settlement agreement, which was fully executed as of January 14, 2026, obligated Plaintiff to file an amended PAGA notice to clarify that “the allegation of failure to pay overtime includes failure to pay double time wages and alleging that Defendant failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay and pay wages that are derived from the regular rate of pay.” (SA, ¶ 2.) An amended PAGA notice was filed with the LWDA on February 20, 2026. (Perez Decl., Exh. 2.) The settlement agreement thereafter requires Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint after the expiration of 65 days to conform the allegations to the amended PAGA notice. (SA, ¶ 13.) The sixty-fifth day after February 20th was April 26, 2026. But no such second amended complaint has been filed to date. The parties need to clarify whether such a second amended complaint will be filed.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

3