Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
12
13 Solorzano v. T&J Fresh Co.
2018-00981299 Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for approval of a $110,000 PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments: As to the settlement: 1. The parties have added terms to paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement, including that if defendant defaults on the second settlement installment payment and does not cure the default, the settlement agreement “shall become null and void.” Amendment ¶ 2.6 (revising paragraph 5). Why would the settlement agreement become “null and void” if defendant does not pay the entire settlement amount? In addition, in the event the court grants approval of the settlement, the court will enter judgment based on the settlement agreement.
2. Plaintiff’s counsel states plaintiff seek a $7,500 enhancement payment. As an initial matter, and as identified in the court’s August 21, 2025 order (ROA 499), the settlement agreement remains inconsistent regarding an enhancement payment for plaintiff. Compare Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1.16, 3.2.3 with Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1.10, 1.15; see also 8/21/25 Order (ROA 499) No.
3. The amendment to the settlement agreement does not address this issue. In addition, absent unique circumstances, the court is unlikely to approve an enhancement award for plaintiff of more than $500 for this modest settlement. If any such unique circumstances exist, plaintiff should identify them in the supplemental filing.
3. In the August 21, 2025 order, the court stated that the settlement agreement provides defendant will pay the gross settlement amount in two “installment” payments. Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.3. The court asked why defendant is paying the settlement in two payments, and stated that if that is due to defendant’s financial condition, the parties must submit evidence of defendant’s financial condition, such as cash flow statements, profit and loss statements and a balance sheet. Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[d]efendant confirmed that it was financially incapable of paying the settlement in a lump sum and will submit financial documentation to the court to support its financial condition.” Supp. Jackson Decl. (ROA 514) ¶ 7. Defendant has not submitted any No financial documentation to the court.
4. In the August 21, 2025 order, the court stated that plaintiff’s counsel sought costs in the amount of $24,727.89. The court stated that (i) postage charges are not recoverable and should be removed and (ii) plaintiff should explain the translation charges and state the depositions taken and when they were taken. 8/21/25 Order (ROA 499) No.
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?”
9.
Plaintiff’s costs still include postage (Supp. Jackson Decl. Ex. C (at p. 1)) and plaintiff has not explained the translation charges or stated the depositions taken and when they were taken.
5. Plaintiff’s counsel has not identified any unique circumstances warranting attorneys’ fees in excess of 25% of the gross settlement amount. See 8/21/25 Order (ROA 499) No.
11. As to the notice letter: 6. The notice letter should be revised consistent with the above.
7. The second sentence of the first paragraph of the notice letter should be removed. 8. “Mr. Solorzano” should be removed after “Plaintiff” throughout the notice letter.
9. The word “him” in the third sentence of the first paragraph should be replaced with “he.”
10. The notice letter should use the same terms as in the settlement agreement, e.g., “Aggrieved Employees” not “PAGA Group Members.”
11. The notice letter should explain that defendant is funding the settlement in two installments.
12. The defendant in the last sentence of the first paragraph is incorrect. In addition, the defendant should be identified in the third sentence of the first paragraph where plaintiff’s claims are described.
13. The last sentence of the first paragraph should be revised to state: “PAGA is a law authorizing civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code.”
14. The second sentence of the second paragraph should be removed.
15. The word “since” in the last sentence of the second paragraph should be removed.
16. The word “employees” in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph should be capitalized.
17. The fifth paragraph on the first page (carrying over to the top of the second page) contains redundant language. Any repeated statements should be removed.
18. The first full paragraph on the second page should state when the aggrieved employees’ release is effective. In addition, the release stated in that paragraph is inconsistent with the aggrieved employees’ release in the settlement agreement and should be revised.
19. The notice letter should state the url for the settlement administrator’s website and should also state that the settlement administrator will post the judgment on the website for at least 180 days.
20. The settlement administrator identified in the notice letter is not the settlement administrator that submitted a declaration to the court. ROA 518. As to the proposed order and judgment (ROA 517): 21. The proposed order and judgment should be revised consistent with the above.
22. Counsel information should be removed from the caption page.
23. The proposed order and judgment should state defendant is funding the settlement in two installments.
24. The parties must submit a Word version of the proposed order.
25. The proposed order and judgment should include a statement that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 664.6. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval is continued to October 22, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points.
If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement shall be submitted, rather than an “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review of the documents. The parties shall provide redlined copies of any revised documents (e.g., revised settlement agreement, revised notice, revised proposed order). Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service.
No earlier hearing date is available for this motion. 14 Torres-Sanabria v. National Instruments Corporation, et al.
2023-01369943 Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement “Because an aggrieved employee's action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself, a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986. PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review “to determine whether [they are] fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future