ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF PAGA CLAIMS

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

On July 5, 2017, plaintiffs and defendant Sangha Sundip Singh filed a joint application for approval of a settlement agreement between those parties and for the court to retain jurisdiction over that agreement. (Doc. No. 31.) A hearing on this matter was held August 15, 2017. Attorneys Aida S. Macedo and Estella M. Cisneros appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Tracy A. Agrall appeared on behalf of defendant Singh. Having considered the parties' request and heard oral argument, and for the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the request for approval of settlement of plaintiffs' PAGA claims.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 13, 2016, alleging the following claims: (l) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act; (3) failure to pay wages owed; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wage; (6) failure to pay overtime; (7) failure to provide wage statements; (8) failure to pay all wages when due; (9) failure to provide tools and equipment; (10) failure to allow inspection or copying of employment records; (11) failure to allow inspection or copying of personnel records; (12) failure to allow inspection under California Labor Code § 1695(a)(5); (13) violation of California Labor Code § 2810; (14) violation of California Labor Code § 1695.7; (15) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (16) violation of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs and defendant Singh have now agreed to and executed a settlement agreement covering all of plaintiffs' claims, including their PAGA claim. (See Doc. No. 31-1.) The settlement agreement provides a total settlement amount of $25,000.00 for settlement of all claims, to be paid over a five-month period. (Id. §§ I-II.) This amount includes payment of $0.00 for claims brought under the FLSA and PAGA. (Id. at 1.) In exchange, defendant Singh is to be released from liability for all claims arising out of or related to the claims raised in this action. (Id. § IV.) The parties also note that plaintiffs plan to file an unopposed motion for entry of default judgment against the remaining defendants named in this action. (See id. at 1.)

LEGAL STANDARD

In 2003, the California Legislature enacted the Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq., after declaring (i) that adequate financing of labor law enforcement was necessary to achieve maximum compliance; (ii) that staffing levels for state labor law enforcement agencies have declined and were unable to keep up with a growing labor market; (iii) that vigorous assessment and collection of civil penalties provides a meaningful deterrent to unlawful conduct; and (iv) that it was therefore in the public interest to allow aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to seek and recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. 2003 Cal. Stat. 6629. Under PAGA, an "aggrieved employee" may bring an action for civil penalties for labor code violations on behalf of herself and other current or former employees. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a).1 A plaintiff suing under PAGA "does so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies." Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969, 986 (2009).

The PAGA statute requires trial courts to "review and approve" any settlement of PAGA claims. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).2 In the absence of authority governing the standard of review of PAGA settlements, the LWDA provided some guidance in a recent case. See California Labor and Workforce Development Agency's Comments on Proposed PAGA Settlement, O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2016), ECF No. 736 at 2-3.3 There, where both class action and PAGA claims were covered by a proposed settlement, the LWDA stressed that

Id.; see also Order, Salazar v. Sysco Cent. Cal., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01758-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 25 at 4 (citing the same with approval); O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (same).

Recognizing the distinct issues presented by class actions, this court is nevertheless persuaded by the LWDA's reasoning expressed in O'Connor and therefore adopts its proposed standard in evaluating the PAGA-related settlement agreement now before the court. Accordingly, the court will approve a settlement of PAGA claims upon a showing that the settlement terms (1) meet the statutory requirements set forth by PAGA, and (2) are fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate4 in view of PAGA's public policy goals.

DISCUSSION

Here, in accordance with the statute's requirements, the parties have submitted a copy of their settlement agreement to the LWDA. (See Doc. No. 31 at 2.) As noted above, the settlement agreement explicitly states that plaintiffs are not recovering any amounts for claims brought under PAGA. To date, the LWDA has not voiced its opposition or otherwise commented on the settlement in this case. Furthermore, at the hearing on this matter, plaintiffs represented that they believe they have been adequately compensated for parallel claims through the settlement agreement.5 Under these circumstances, and in light of the total amount of monetary relief provided for under the settlement agreement as a whole, the court finds that the settlement agreement as it relates to plaintiffs' PAGA claims is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the public policy goals of PAGA.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.