Gilmore v. Safe Box Logistics, Inc.

Background

Janice Gilmore brought a proposed wage-and-hour class and representative action against Safe Box Logistics, Inc., and other defendants. The pending motions sought approval of a settlement covering only claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), along with an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. The court decided the motions without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for May 15, 2025.

The court had previously denied Gilmore’s motion to approve the PAGA settlement without prejudice because of several deficiencies, including missing comparator cases and attachments, a need for proof that filings had been served on the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, concerns about certain settlement provisions, and incomplete compliance with the District’s procedural guidance for class-action settlements. The court recognized that the renewed motion addressed or explained most of those earlier problems.

Reasons for Denying Settlement Approval

The court nevertheless found the second amended motion insufficient to determine whether the proposed PAGA settlement was “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.”

First, the motion did not identify Safe Box Logistics, Inc.’s maximum possible PAGA liability or assess the strengths and weaknesses of each alleged California Labor Code violation. Instead, Gilmore compared the settlement with an estimated “realistic exposure value,” asserting that the settlement represented 27.7 percent of that value. The motion identified litigation risks, including possible reductions in PAGA penalties, individualized issues concerning missed meal and rest breaks, possible federal-law preemption, the possibility that later penalties would not be imposed, Safe Box’s ability to pay, the costs of continued litigation, and the possibility that a fact finder would accept Safe Box’s defenses. The court found that these points did not substitute for a maximum-liability estimate and a claim-by-claim analysis. The court also noted that Gilmore did not claim to have used an expert or damages model and had not performed the type of extensive analysis that could justify relying on a realistic-exposure estimate.

For any renewed motion, the court directed Gilmore to provide Safe Box’s maximum liability for each alleged California Labor Code violation and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each claim.

Second, the court remained concerned that Gilmore had not timely moved for class certification by the June 22, 2023 deadline set by the court. Gilmore’s counsel had repeatedly acknowledged that the missed deadline “effectively wip[ed] out all of her potential class-wide claims,” while the defendants had contended that Gilmore could not recover on the class allegations because she missed that deadline. The court required any renewed settlement motion to explain the failure to seek class certification because that issue was relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the PAGA settlement.

The court also directed counsel to address the missed class-certification deadline in any renewed fee motion. It stated that the benefit achieved for class members is a primary measure of the reasonableness of a fee request and required counsel to explain why the requested fees should be awarded despite the failure to timely seek class certification. The court noted that Safe Box’s lack of opposition to the fee request did not remove the court’s independent duty to decide whether the requested award was reasonable.

Third, any renewed settlement motion had to state whether the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency had responded to the proposed settlement and promptly lodge that response with the court.

Disposition and Further Deadlines

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Gilmore’s second amended motion for approval of the PAGA settlement and denied the motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. The court stated that a renewed motion for PAGA settlement approval had to be filed by June 9, 2025, and had to comply with all aspects of the District’s procedural guidance for class-action settlements. If additional time was needed, Gilmore had to request it by May 16, 2025. If Gilmore chose not to file a renewed settlement-approval motion by June 9, 2025, the parties had to file a joint status report by June 24, 2025, proposing how the litigation should proceed.