Gregg v. Bohemian Club
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-02760
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Anthony Gregg v. Monastery Camp, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied approval of a proposed labor-law settlement, allowing a renewed motion after deficiencies are addressed.
The ruling affects Anthony Gregg, Shawn Granger, Wallid Saad, the other employees included in the proposed PAGA settlement group, Monastery Camp and the other defendants, plaintiffs’ counsel, and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The court did not approve the proposed settlement.
What happened
Anthony Gregg and other former valets sued Monastery Camp and other defendants in a wage-and-hour case involving work at the Bohemian Club. The parties asked the court to approve a $88,500 settlement under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which allows employees to seek civil penalties on the state’s behalf.
The proposed settlement included payments to the three named plaintiffs, incentive awards, a payment to the state labor agency and other employees, and $20,000 in attorney’s fees. The court found that the parties had not provided enough information about whether the settlement was submitted to the state agency, the value of the claims, the incentive awards, the fee request, and a provision preventing defendants from opposing the fee request.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the joint motion for settlement approval. The parties may submit a renewed motion within 30 days addressing the identified deficiencies; if they do not, they must file a joint status report within 45 days proposing how the litigation should proceed.
The detailed version
- Gregg v. Bohemian Club · No. 3:23-cv-02760
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 18, 2025
Background
The case is a wage-and-hour collective action brought by former valets for one of the camps at the Bohemian Club. The parties jointly moved for approval of a settlement under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Under PAGA, an employee acts as an agent of the state’s labor-law enforcement agencies, and a court must review and approve a settlement of PAGA claims.
The proposed settlement covered non-exempt valets who worked for the defendants in California between April 25, 2022, and November 20, 2024. The proposed gross settlement amount was $88,500, with no provision for the money to return to the defendants. The allocation included:
- $9,500 to each of the three named plaintiffs; - a $10,000 incentive award to each named plaintiff; - $10,000 for the PAGA settlement, including $7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $2,500 to the PAGA settlement group; and - $20,000 in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel.
Reasons for Denial
The court explained that district courts generally assess PAGA settlements under a standard asking whether the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of PAGA’s purposes. The court identified several deficiencies:
- The papers did not state whether the proposed settlement had been submitted to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, as required by PAGA. A renewed motion must certify whether the submission occurred and state whether the agency responded.
- The papers did not estimate the total value of the plaintiffs’ claims. Without that estimate, the court lacked a reference point for evaluating the $10,000 allocated to the PAGA claims.
- The parties supported the $10,000 incentive awards by citing a case that did not involve PAGA claims. A renewed motion must cite cases awarding incentive payments to PAGA representatives and explain how the plaintiffs compare with the representatives in those cases.
- Including the incentive awards, the settlement would allocate approximately $20,000 to each named plaintiff while leaving approximately $500 each to the two non-plaintiffs identified in the order. The papers did not address this discrepancy or identify cases approving settlements with similar differences.
- The motion and counsel’s declaration did not support the requested $20,000 in attorney’s fees. They did not calculate a lodestar, which is an estimate based on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates, or identify cases approving similarly unsupported fee awards. A renewed motion must provide enough information for the court to calculate an appropriate lodestar.
- The settlement contained a “clear sailing” provision stating that defendants would not oppose the request for $20,000 in fees. The court stated that courts in the Ninth Circuit view such provisions suspiciously because they may suggest unfairness or collusion. The renewed motion must more fully explain how the negotiations remained fair.
Disposition
The court concluded that the proposed settlement had not been shown to be fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the parties’ joint motion for approval of the PAGA settlement. The order permits the parties to file a renewed motion within 30 days if they address the deficiencies. If they do not file a renewed motion within that period, they must file a joint status report within 45 days proposing how the litigation should proceed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.