Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00847/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00847-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-00847 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

RAFAEL NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDAZ CULTURED MARBLE & ONYX,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 13-00847 LB

ORDER APPROVING THE PAGA

PENALTY IN THE PARTIES’

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiff Rafael Navarro filed this wage-and-hour action against his former employer, Ordaz

Cultured Marble & Onyx, Inc. (“OCM&O”), Francisco Ordaz, the responsible managing officer and

owner of OCM&O, and Guillermina Ordaz, a supervisor at OCM&O (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Mr. Navarro brings claims on his own behalf for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a), numerous provisions of the California Labor Code, and California’s

Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. He also brings a claim,

on behalf of himself and all other current and former employees of OCM&O, under California's

Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. 

On January 29, 2015, the parties notified the court that they settled the action and had executed a

written settlement agreement to that effect. On February 16, 2015, Mr. Navarro filed a motion

asking the court to approve the parties’ settlement. (Motion, ECF No. 70.) This is not a class action

subject to Rule 23, so the court does not need to approve the full settlement. But because Mr.

Case 3:13-cv-00847-LB Document 71 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-00847 LB

ORDER 2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Navarro’s action includes a PAGA claim, the court must approve the PAGA penalties agreed to by

the parties. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l) (“The superior court shall review and approve any

penalties sought as a part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to [PAGA].”). Here, out of

the total settlement amount of $76,825, the parties have set aside $20,000 as a penalty under PAGA. 

(See Motion, Ex. A (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2(b)(vi), ECF No. 70-1 at 6.) Of that $20,000,

$15,000 will go to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency “for enforcement of

labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under”

PAGA, and $5,000 will go to the “aggrieved employees.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i). This

75%/25% split is required under PAGA. See id. This $20,000 amount also is in line with PAGA

penalties that have been approved in other cases. See, e.g., Franco v. Ruiz Food Prods., Inc., No.

1:10–cv–02354–SKO, 2012 WL 5941801, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (approving PAGA

penalties of $10,000 as part of $2.5 million common-fund settlement); Garcia v. Gordon Trucking,

No. 1:10–CV–0324–AWI–SKO, 2012 WL 5364575, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012) (approving

PAGA settlement payment of $10,000 out of the $3.7 million common-fund settlement); Chu v.

Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, No. C 05–4526 MHP, C 06–7924 MHP, 2011 WL 672645, at *1

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) (approving PAGA settlement payment of $7,500 to the LWDA out of $6.9

million common-fund settlement). The court finds the PAGA penalty reasonable. It is approved.

The court also notes that the parties state in their settlement agreement, although Mr. Navarro

does not mention it in his motion or proposed order, that they would like the court to retain

jurisdiction over this action such that it may enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. (See

Settlement Agreement ¶ 4(b), ECF No. 70-1 at 9.) To the extent that they would like the court to do

so, they should include this request in the stipulation of dismissal that the court previously ordered

them to file by February 27, 2015. (See Order Administratively Closing This Action, ECF No. 69.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00847-LB Document 71 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 2