Decker v. Allstates Consulting Services, LLC, 2:18-cv-03216

Plaintiff Shanta Decker filed an LWDA notice (Aug. 13, 2018) and a state-court complaint (Nov. 2, 2018) asserting multiple employment claims, including PAGA claims for untimely wages and inaccurate wage statements.
Defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity and the parties later mediated and reached a global settlement resolving the PAGA claims.
The PAGA settlement totals $20,000 (inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs): $8,677.67 for fees/costs and $11,333.33 remaining, with $8,499.99 (75%) allocated to the LWDA and $2,833.33 (25%) to aggrieved employees (≈15 employees; ~$188.88 each if 15 recipients).
The LWDA was notified of the settlement and did not object.
The court reviewed the settlement under PAGA’s requirement to approve court-supervised settlements and evaluated relevant Hanlon factors (as adapted for PAGA claims).
The court approved the PAGA settlement and attorneys’ fees ($6,666.67) but denied the requested costs without prejudice for lack of itemization; it ordered disbursement instructions and dismissal paperwork.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PAGA settlement is fair and not “unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory”	Decker: $20,000 settlement reasonable given litigation risks and below maximum statutory exposure	Defendants jointly support settlement as reasonable and final	Approved: Settlement not confiscatory; represents ~42% of potential exposure and satisfies PAGA review factors
Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees	Plaintiff: $6,666.67 (1/3 of fund); counsel spent ~20 hrs at $400/hr (lodestar $8,000)	Defendants join approval of agreed fees	Approved: Although 1/3 > 25% benchmark, court finds lodestar with multiplier reasonable and awards $6,666.67
Reasonableness of claimed costs	Plaintiff: requests $2,000 for costs (stated as less than total incurred)	Defendants join settlement including costs figure	Denied without prejudice: counsel failed to provide itemized documentation of costs
Allocation of settlement between LWDA and aggrieved employees	Decker: allocate 75% to LWDA ($8,499.99) and 25% ($2,833.33) to employees pro rata	Defendants accept allocation; LWDA did not object	Approved: Court orders payments as allocated and procedures for returned/uncashed checks

Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am. Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (PAGA actions are brought as an agent of the state; the state is the real party in interest)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (factors for evaluating fairness of aggregate settlements)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (noting limits of class-action precedent; cited regarding scope of Hanlon factors)
Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (25% of fund benchmark for percentage-of-the-fund fee awards)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussion of lodestar and percentage methods for fee awards)
In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) (special circumstances that may justify departing from the benchmark fee)
In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions, 222 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (local guidance on reasonable hourly rates in wage-and-hour/PAGA contexts)