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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
DANIEL J. BUCKLEY
MATERN LAW GROUP PC
DOES 1 TO 100
SWISSPORT SA LLC
MOSS ARI E. ESQ.
MOSS ARI EMANUEL ESQ.
PROCEL BRIAN AARON
SULZER KENNETH DAWSON
YUDELSON DAVID ALAN
8/4/2020: Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
4/10/2020: Notice of Settlement
4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)
2/7/2020: Notice of Related Case
2/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
12/3/2019: Substitution of Attorney
12/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
5/8/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/17/2019: Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/17/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
3/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 03/18/2019
4/4/2018: COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES
11/20/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) [For Leave To File First Amended Complaint]
9/18/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
7/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
7/30/2018: Minute Order -
4/10/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/10/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Hearing02/22/2021 at 16:00 PM in Department 1 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Court Order); Filed by Daniela Bustillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
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
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA) of 08/26/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (PAGA) - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
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
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-07-02 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniela Bustillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PENALTIESRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC700752 Hearing Date: August 26, 2020 Dept: 1
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
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. 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.
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.
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties’ Settlement is APPROVED.