Rojas-Cifuentes v. ACX Pacific Northwest Inc., 2:14-cv-00697

Plaintiff Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes, a former non-exempt automobile mechanic, filed a putative class action against Al Dahra ACX Global, Pacific Leasing, and individual defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, and PAGA claims.
Suit alleges wage and hour violations, including unpaid wages, meal/rest break violations, improper wage statements, and untimely wage payments affecting approximately 800 current and former non-exempt employees in California.
After years of litigation, investigation, and mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $2,000,000 (non-reversionary), with class members’ awards determined based on workweeks and subclass participation.
Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement. Defendants did not oppose the motion.
The court considered issues of class certification, adequacy/equity of notice and payments, potential conflict of interest from the plaintiff’s individual claim and incentive award, and fairness under both Rule 23 and PAGA standards.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement, conditionally certified the expanded class, and directed additional information to be provided before final approval, especially regarding incentive awards and subclass allocations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Provisional Class Certification	Class met Rule 23(a), (b)(3) requirements; numerosity etc.	No opposition	Granted for settlement purposes.
Adequacy of Class Representative	No conflict; individual claim distinct and typical	No opposition	Adequate, but court wants more information.
Fairness and Reasonableness of Settlement	Settlement is fair, arms-length, provides adequate relief	No opposition	Preliminarily fair, reasonable, adequate.
PAGA Settlement	PAGA allocation is appropriate given risk, LWDA notified	No opposition	Satisfies fairness, reasonable adequacy.

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (sets standards for class action settlement approval)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement for class actions)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance and superiority in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality and adequacy under Rule 23)
Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (incentive awards in class actions)
Kim v. Reins Int’l Cal., Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73 (2020) (PAGA actions are distinct from class actions)
Arias v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) (PAGA actions bind all aggrieved employees)