This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/09/2020 at 00:25:50 (UTC).

JUAN AMAYA VS PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES INC

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 JUAN AMAYA filed a Labor - Wage Claim lawsuit against PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7190

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wage Claim

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

AMAYA JUAN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MOSS ARI E. ESQ.

MOSS ARI EMANUEL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LLAGUNO FERMIN H. ESQ.

LLAGUNO FERMIN HUMBERTO ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

1/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Status Report

7/29/2019: Status Report

Notice - NOTICE RE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

6/10/2019: Notice - NOTICE RE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

4/11/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

2/1/2019: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference ( FURTHER); (2) Status Conference ...)

2/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference ( FURTHER); (2) Status Conference ...)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/20/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order - Minute Order (1) Case Management Conference; (2) Order to Show Cause regard...)

11/7/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (1) Case Management Conference; (2) Order to Show Cause regard...)

Minute Order -

9/18/2018: Minute Order -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

9/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

8/31/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

6/20/2018: Minute Order -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004

8/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004

COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 2698 ET SEQ. ("PAGA")

3/8/2018: COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 2698 ET SEQ. ("PAGA")

SUMMONS -

3/8/2018: SUMMONS -

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

3/13/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/13/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2020
  • Hearing03/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Joint Report of Schedule for Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re Joint Report of Schedule for Se...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Juan Amaya (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Trial Setting Conference (and Status Conference regarding mediation completion (c/f 5-10 on court's motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference and Status Conference regarding medi...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketNotice ( RE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE); Filed by Pitney Bowes Presort Services Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Trial Setting Conference (and Status Conference regarding mediation completion) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
18 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-06-20 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Juan Amaya (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 2698 ET SEQ. ("PAGA")

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697190    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Juan Amaya, on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC697190

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Pitney Bowes Resort Services, Inc.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: August 31, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Juan Amaya

Responding Party:      none

Ruling: The motion for preliminary settlement is granted. The proposed order, filed on August 13, 2020 will be signed and filed.

Preliminary Approval Standard

Settlement Agreement

Fairness

The trial court must determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all concerned. (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 332, 337.) There is a presumption that the settlement agreement is fair where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the trial court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Id.)

Even once the presumption of fairness has been established, the court bears the responsibility to ensure the recovery under the settlement agreement represents a reasonable compromise, given the magnitude and apparent merit of the claims being released, discounted by the risks and expenses of attempting to establish and collect on those claims by pursuing the litigation. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.)

Notice

The class notice shall state the total approximate amount each class member is estimated to receive and the number of workweeks credited to him or her. (Id.) The proposed class notice also provides information about the terms of the settlement, the relief available to class members, the attorney fees and costs to be paid, the named plaintiff’s enhancement award, the date, time, and place of the final approval hearing, and the procedure and deadline for objecting to and opting out of the settlement. (Moss Decl., ¶ 91.) The court finds that the contents of the class notice as well as its method of delivery to the class members are sufficient.

PAGA Settlement

PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549, citing Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.”

Certification

“all former hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during” December 27, 2014 through July 29, 2020.

Attorney Fees and Costs

An award of attorney fees is made by the court at the fairness hearing. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480.) Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, “the court ha[s] an independent right and responsibility to review the attorney fees provision of the settlement agreement and award only so much as it determined reasonable.” (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.)

[trial court properly focused on the general question of whether the fee award appropriately reflects the degree of time and effort expended by the attorneys in performing a cross-check using counsel’s declarations summarizing overall time spent, rather than scrutinizing daily time sheets in which work was broken down by individual task].)

Conclusion

Date: August 31, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC697190    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Juan Amaya, on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC697190

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Pitney Bowes Resort Services, Inc.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: July 29, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Juan Amaya

Responding Party:      none

Ruling: The motion for preliminary settlement is will be approved by the court upon clarification of the discrepancy between the settlement agreement, which says fees and costs $16,625, and all of the other documentation, which indicates up to $7,500 in costs and $14,000 in attorney fees. The hearing on the final approval of the settlement will be scheduled on this date.   

Preliminary Approval Standard

Settlement Agreement

Fairness

The trial court must determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all concerned. (Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 332, 337.) There is a presumption that the settlement agreement is fair where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the trial court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Id.)

Even once the presumption of fairness has been established, the court bears the responsibility to ensure the recovery under the settlement agreement represents a reasonable compromise, given the magnitude and apparent merit of the claims being released, discounted by the risks and expenses of attempting to establish and collect on those claims by pursuing the litigation. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.)

Notice

The class notice shall state the total approximate amount each class member is estimated to receive and the number of workweeks credited to him or her. (Id.) The proposed class notice also provides information about the terms of the settlement, the relief available to class members, the attorney fees and costs to be paid, the named plaintiff’s enhancement award, the date, time, and place of the final approval hearing, and the procedure and deadline for objecting to and opting out of the settlement. (Moss Decl., ¶ 91.) The court finds that the contents of the class notice as well as its method of delivery to the class members are sufficient.

PAGA Settlement

PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549, citing Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.”

Certification

“all former hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during” December 27, 2014 through the date of the preliminary approval.

Attorney Fees and Costs

An award of attorney fees is made by the court at the fairness hearing. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480.) Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, “the court ha[s] an independent right and responsibility to review the attorney fees provision of the settlement agreement and award only so much as it determined reasonable.” (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.)

[trial court properly focused on the general question of whether the fee award appropriately reflects the degree of time and effort expended by the attorneys in performing a cross-check using counsel’s declarations summarizing overall time spent, rather than scrutinizing daily time sheets in which work was broken down by individual task].)

Conclusion

Date: July 29, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOSS ARI E.