Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Adela Hurtado v. Guiseppe’s Cucina, LLC, 24CV-0735
Hearing: Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Date: May 28, 2026
Guiseppe’s Cucina, LLC (Defendant) employed Adela Hurtado (Plaintiff) as an hourly-paid, nonexempt cook from approximately 2015 through May 31, 2024. (Amended Declaration of Adela Hurtado (Hurtado Dec.), ¶ 3.) On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant asserting claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (PAGA).
On July 25, 2025, the parties participated in formal mediation and reached a PAGA only settlement of the Action. (Declaration of Vilmarie Cordero (Cordero Dec.), ¶¶ 12-16; Hurtado Dec., ¶¶ 16- 20.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for approval of the PAGA settlement. Notice was properly served on February 25, 2026. Plaintiff has served the LWDA with the settlement as required. (Cordero Dec., ¶ 5, Ex. 3.)
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. 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 or penalties that may be available to employees suing for individual violations. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The terms of the PAGA settlement provide that Defendant shall pay $105,000. Costs to be deducted from that amount are: (1) attorneys’ fees of $35,000. (One-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount); (2) attorney legal costs not to exceed $12,000 1; (3) $5,000 to Plaintiff as a service award; (4) up to $5,890 in settlement administration costs; (5) $47,110 in PAGA penalties which will be allocated 65% ($30,621.50) to the LWDA and the remaining 35% ($16,488.50) to the Aggrieved Employees. (Cordero Dec., ¶ 3, Ex. 1 (Settlement Agreement), § 3.)
“Aggrieved Employees” is defined as “all current and former non-exempt, hourly paid employees, who were employed by Giuseppe's during the representative action’s PAGA period.” (Settlement Agreement, § 1.4.) The “PAGA Period” is the period from September 21, 2023, to September 20, 2025. (Settlement Agreement, § 1.19). Plaintiff estimates that there are one hundred seventeen (117) Aggrieved Employees who worked approximately 3,086 PAGA Pay Periods. (Settlement Agreement, § 4.6.)
The gross settlement is non-reversionary. (Settlement Agreement, § 3.1.) The PAGA penalties to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees (“Employees’ Portion”) will be paid on a pro rata basis according to each Aggrieved Employee’s number of Pay Periods. (Settlement Agreement, § 3.2.5).
The Settlement Agreement has an escalator clause that allows Defendant to either increase the amount of the settlement or shorten the PAGA period should the number of Pay Periods during the PAGA Period increase by more than ten percent (10%) above 3,086. (Settlement Agreement § 8.1.) Plaintiff submits no plan for seeking Court approval should this occur and Defendant opts to shorten the PAGA period. In other words, a change in the PAGA period would render the settlement no longer approved by the Court. 2
The Aggrieved Employees will not release claims or remedies other than civil penalties asserted in the complaint and PAGA notices. (Settlement Agreement, § 5.1.) Plaintiff, by contrast, is waiving Civil Code section 542 and releasing penalty claims whether known or unknown. (Settlement Agreement, § 5.2.)
III. Reasonableness of the Settlement
Plaintiff’s counsel reports that the parties exchanged substantial information and conducted informal discovery. Defendant provided a sample of time and pay records, consisting of time and pay records for every third employee pulled from an alphabetized PAGA list of all aggrieved
1 Plaintiff’s counsel submits evidence that her firm incurred only $9,031.14 in legal cost and a request that $9,031.14 be awarded. (Cordero Dec., ¶69.)
2 While escalator clauses are often included in class action settlements there is a two part approval process, preliminary and final approval, which allows the Court to review and approve or deny a change in the class period. There is no second Court approval here.
employees. On June 17, 2025, Defendant produced a copy of Plaintiff’s onboarding paperwork, a copy of Defendant’s employee handbook, and an excel spreadsheet of time punch data for 39 individuals spanning September 1, 2023, to May 24, 2025, for both Giuseppe’s locations. Defendant also provided a headcount of PAGA members and identified 117 non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant during the PAGA period for approximately 3,086 pay periods. (Cordero Dec., ¶¶ 22, 23.)
The parties reached the settlement at a full-day mediation with experienced mediator Daniel J. Turner. (Cordero Dec., ¶¶ 12, 13, 14.) Plaintiff has shown that her attorneys are experienced with this type of litigation. (Cordero Dec., ¶¶ 45-49, Ex. 4.)
Plaintiff’s counsel determined Defendant’s maximum potential liability at approximately $1,177,650.00, of which $412,177.50 would go to Aggrieved Employees, and $765.472.50 would go to the LWDA. Plaintiff’s counsel considered that this represents the maximum exposure Defendant could potentially face based on an “everything goes right” scenario for all claims, and the presumption that the Court would permit stacking and not reduce the civil penalties. (Cordero Dec., ¶ 27.)
The Court has discretion to reduce and/or assess lower penalties, and to deny stacking and/or cumulative penalties. Plaintiff’s counsel concludes that given the unlikelihood of recovering penalties for cumulative penalties for each statutory violation as well as the defenses asserted and litigation risks the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of the PAGA civil penalties claims. (Cordero Dec. ¶¶ 17, 18, 19.)
The settlement amount is nearly 9% of the estimated damage amount.
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 Defendant opts to shorten the PAGA Period pursuant to the escalator clause. The approved amount of legal costs to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel from the settlement funds is $9,031.14. 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