This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/07/2020 at 19:35:00 (UTC).

DANIELA BUSTILLO VS SWISSPORT SA LLC

Case Summary

On 04/04/2018 DANIELA BUSTILLO filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SWISSPORT SA LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE and DANIEL J. BUCKLEY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0752

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

DANIEL J. BUCKLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BUSTILLO DANIELA

MATERN LAW GROUP PC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

SWISSPORT SA LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MOSS ARI E. ESQ.

MOSS ARI EMANUEL ESQ.

WELLS JULIA

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PROCEL BRIAN

PROCEL BRIAN AARON

SULZER KENNETH DAWSON

YUDELSON DAVID ALAN

 

Court Documents

Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

8/4/2020: Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

Notice of Settlement

4/10/2020: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

Notice of Related Case

2/7/2020: Notice of Related Case

Notice - NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

2/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

Substitution of Attorney

12/3/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Notice - NOTICE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

12/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/8/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/17/2019: Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Service by Mail

4/17/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 03/18/2019

3/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 03/18/2019

COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES

4/4/2018: COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) [For Leave To File First Amended Complaint]

11/20/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) [For Leave To File First Amended Complaint]

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

9/18/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

7/30/2018: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/10/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

4/10/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/22/2021
  • Hearing02/22/2021 at 16:00 PM in Department 1 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court Order); Filed by Daniela Bustillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketOrder and Judgment Granting Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval of Claims Brought Under the Private Attorneys General Act and Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Incentive Payment, and Administrative Expenses; Filed by Daniela Bustillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA) of 08/26/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
76 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; No Appearance) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-07-02 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniela Bustillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700752    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 1

RULING

MOTION: PAGA Settlement Approval

HEARING DATE: August 26, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC700752

CASE NAME: Bustillo v. Swissport SA LLC

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniela Bustillo

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

TRIAL DATE: Not Set

Discussion

Upon reviewing the papers, the Court approves the PAGA settlement as proposed by the parties in Bustillo v. Swissport SA LLC (BC700752) for the following reasons.

  1. Key Settlement Terms.

1. The Settlement Amount and Distributions are Normal.

The proposed $295,000.00 settlement (for PAGA penalties only) breaks down to a net settlement of $169,765.68 following the deduction of $103,250.00 in attorney’s fees, $9,484.32 in costs, a $7,500.00 incentive award to Plaintiff, and $5,000.00 in settlement administration costs. See, e.g., Moss Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

The parties propose the standard distribution of 75% to the State ($127,324.26) and 25% to the aggrieved employees ($42,441.42). Id. The parties have not provided an estimated average payment to each employee, but the settlement provides that each employee shall be paid on a pro rata basis. The parties gave the LWDA notice of the settlement. Moss Decl. ¶¶ 2, 25, Ex. 1.

The requested attorney’s fees are acceptable under the common fund doctrine. See Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 557 (2009). Plaintiff did not submit a lodestar cross-check of her requested attorney’s fees. While the Court generally prefers submission of a lodestar cross-check, Plaintiff’s detailed submission of the procedural history of this case provides the Court with an adequate basis to judge to the fairness of the requested fees. Accordingly, in light of the work completed by Plaintiff’s counsel on this case (e.g., legal research, discovery, damages analysis, mediation, etc.), the Court finds that the fee award is reasonable.

2. The Settlement is Non-Reversionary.

The settlement is non-reversionary. Mailed settlement checks that remain uncashed after 180 days will be deemed unpaid residuals pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384(a). Such unpaid amounts will then be made payable to the State Controller’s Office.

3. The Aggrieved Employee’s Releases are Narrow, and Plaintiff’s Release is Broad. 

In exchange, Plaintiff will provide Defendant with a general release of all PAGA, underlying, and other claims, including a waiver of Civil Code section 1542, but aggrieved employees will only be releasing their PAGA penalty claims. Moss Decl. ¶¶ 2, 44, Ex. 1.

  1. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate in Light of the Circumstances of the Case and is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness.

The parties reached the proposed settlement through arms-length mediation following a damages analysis conducted on a sampling of time and payroll data. The parties reached this settlement after extensive mediation and settlement negotiation efforts. Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

Moreover, the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the gamut of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants’ potential defenses, possible reductions in any eventual PAGA award, and the posture of this case. See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116, 130 (2008) (“The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.”). The proposed fee, cost, and incentive awards are reasonable as well. Ultimately, there appears to be no other reason countenancing denial of the motion. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Parties’ Settlement is APPROVED.