This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/28/2022 at 01:49:04 (UTC).

VALENTE DE LA O MORA VS JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Case Summary

On 11/18/2019 VALENTE DE LA O MORA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1380

  • Filing Date:

    11/18/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DE LA O MORA VALENTE AN INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DE LA O MORA VALENTE

Defendants

JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KIM SAM

HAN YOONIS

Defendant Attorneys

ROBINSON MARK

ROBINSON MARK B.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

1/7/2022: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE;) OF 11/08/2021

11/8/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE;) OF 11/08/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE;)

11/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE;)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS G...)

11/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS G...)

Order - [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT [RES. ID. #9825]

11/18/2021: Order - [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT [RES. ID. #9825]

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

11/19/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Request for Judicial Notice

10/19/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAM KIM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

10/19/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAM KIM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

10/20/2021: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Request for Judicial Notice

10/20/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAM KIM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

10/20/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAM KIM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

Notice of Settlement

10/18/2021: Notice of Settlement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF NEIL EDDINGTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

8/26/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF NEIL EDDINGTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Separate Statement

8/26/2021: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

8/26/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

Exhibit List

8/26/2021: Exhibit List

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JORGE IVAN URIBE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

8/26/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JORGE IVAN URIBE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

5/28/2021: Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/07/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (for Approval of Private Attorneys General Act Representative Action Settlement [Res. ID# 296759669825]) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • Docket[Proposed] Order and Judgment [Res. ID. #9825]; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other for Approval of Private Attorneys G...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((5 Days)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication [Res. ID# 347670570529]) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Notice of Settlement of Entire Case;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 10:44 AM in Department 40; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer;) of 11/26/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Valente De La O Mora (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: *******1380 Hearing Date: November 18, 2021 Dept: 76

This is a representative PAGA action seeking to recover civil penalties for wage and hour violations.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiff seeks an order permitting settlement of this representative PAGA action.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Valente De La O Mora’s motion to approve PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Approve PAGA Settlement

Request For Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the legislative history regarding the PAGA legislation is DENIED as not necessary to this Court’s determination. The Court need only take judicial notice of relevant materials. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled in part on other grounds noted in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276.) The Court may deny a request for judicial notice of material unnecessary to its decision. (Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 709, 713.)

Discussion

The parties entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiff seeks an order permitting settlement of this representative PAGA action.

The State is the real party in interest as to a PAGA claim. (Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale\'s, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 665, 680.)

Pursuant to Labor Code ; 2699(l)(2) & (4), on October 18, 2021, Plaintiff received confirmation that the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) had received a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. (Sam Kim Declaration, Exh. C.)

The LWDA was given an opportunity to object if it wished to do so. The Court has not received any objection from the LWDA. It does not appear that Plaintiff received any objection from the LWDA. As such, the LWDA is deemed to have waived any such objection.

Labor Code, ; 2699(l)(2) provides; “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” A copy of the proposed settlement is attached to the Kim Declaration as Exh. A.

(i) Except as provided in subdivision (j), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws, including the administration of this part, and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant the funding to the agency for those purposes; and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.

(Labor Code, ; 2699(i).)

Following a second mediation session, the parties agreed to settle the representative PAGA claim. Prior to settling, the parties engaged in written discovery, conducted depositions, exchanged information, and engaged in a prior mediation session.

The aggrieved employees covered by the settlement are referred to as “PAGA Employees,” who were non-exempt employees employed by JLI at any time between September 6, 2018 to September 14, 2021. (Settlement Agreement, Page 1, ¶ A.)

Defendant agrees to pay $977,000.00 toward the Settlement (“Gross PAGA Settlement Fund”), which will be all inclusive, encompassing (1) all payments to the LWDA and PAGA Employees; (2) any and all costs of third party administration of the settlement; and (3) all attorneys’ fees and costs. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.1.)

The Settlement is made on behalf of 1,488 aggrieved employees, which includes 188 piece rate employees, that worked approximately 66,959 pay periods, which includes 16,864 workweeks worked by piece rate employees. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.1.1.)

Attorney’s fees to be deducted from the Gross Settlement PAGA Fund shall be up to 1/3 of the Fund, equaling $325,666.67, and costs up to $22,000. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.2.)

Settlement Administration Costs to be deducted from the Fund shall not exceed $7,950.00. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.3.)

Once the Attorney Fee/Cost Payment, and Administration Costs have been subtracted from the Gross PAGA Settlement Fund, the remaining funds (approximately $621,383.33) will be referred to as the “Net PAGA Settlement Fund.” (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.5.)

The Net PAGA Settlement Fund shall be allocated as follows: A total of 75% of the Net PAGA Settlement Fund shall be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA PAGA Payment”), which approximately $466,037.50. The remaining 25% of the Net PAGA Settlement Fund (“PAGA Employees’ Fund”) shall be payable to the PAGA Employees, and each PAGA Employee shall receive a pro rata share of this amount as further detailed in ¶ 5.6. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.5.1.)

Each PAGA Employee shall be sent a pro rata share of the PAGA Employees’ Fund (“Individual Settlement Shares”) based on the number of pay periods that he or she worked for Defendant in the State of California during the PAGA Period (“Qualifying Pay Periods") and whether the PAGA Employee was a piece rate or non-piece rate employee. The Individual Settlement Shares shall be calculated as follows: First, for PAGA Employees who were non-piece rate employees, one (1) pay period will count as one (l) qualifying workweek. For PAGA Employees who were piece rate employees, one (1) pay period will count as (2) qualifying workweeks. Second, each PAGA Employee’s number of Qualifying Pay Periods will be divided

by the total number of Qualifying Pay Periods for all PAGA Employees based on the formula

above, and the resulting figure will be referred to as the “Multiplier.” Third, each PAGA Employee’s Multiplier will be applied to the PAGA Employees’ Fund to calculate each employee’s dollar share of the PAGA Employees’ Fund. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.6.)

Plaintiff’s counsel estimates that the settlement amount is equivalent to a penalty of about $656.59 per employee. (Kim Decl., ¶ 26.) The Court finds that this amount is fair and reasonable, given the potential merit of Defendant’s arguments that would reduce or bar recovery, and the estimated $2,126,250 recovery at trial of as set forth at ¶¶ 27 – 30.

Notice to the PAGA employees will be pursuant to ¶ 4.1and 4.2. The terms of the distribution and tax treatment is set forth in ¶ 5.7 of the Settlement Agreement.

In exchange for payment of the settlement amount, Defendant will receive a release by the LWDA of PAGA representative claims and Plaintiff’s individual claims, as set forth at ¶ 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff signed an individual settlement whereby he will receive $23,000 for his individual claims. (Kim Decl., ¶ 22.) This amount is not deducted from the Gross PAGA Settlement Fund.

The proposed notice to the aggrieved employees is attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement (Kim Decl., Exh. A.) The form of notice is approved.

Accordingly, the motion for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL LTD. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROBINSON MARK B.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROBINSON JR. MARK