Ortega v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-05596
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ortega v. UnitedHealth Group, Judge Tigar ordered briefing before deciding whether to approve the parties’ proposed settlement-based dismissal of a Private Attorneys General Act claim.
The plaintiffs and defendants involved in the proposed PAGA settlement; the requested settlement approval and dismissal were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Ortega v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to approve the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of a Private Attorneys General Act claim based on their settlement.
The court explained that approval is required for settlements of these claims and that courts commonly review whether the settlement satisfies the statute and is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also required the parties to submit the proposed agreement to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency if they had not already done so.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the parties to file a short joint brief with legal authority supporting the proposed settlement’s fairness and to file proof of submission to the agency. The order did not approve or reject the settlement or dismissal request.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-05596
- Jon Tigar
- June 18, 2025
Background
Theresa Ortega and other plaintiffs sued UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and other defendants. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested approval of the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, commonly called PAGA. The request was made under California Labor Code section 2699.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that court approval is required for PAGA settlements under California Labor Code section 2699. The court also noted that there is no governing standard for reviewing PAGA settlements, although courts commonly examine whether the settlement meets PAGA’s statutory requirements and is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of PAGA’s public-policy goals.
Order
The court did not approve the requested dismissal or the proposed settlement in this order. Instead, it ordered the parties to file a short, joint brief providing legal authority supporting their contention that the proposed settlement terms satisfy the applicable fairness requirement. The opinion text does not clearly show the number of days allowed for filing the brief.
The court further ordered that, if they had not already done so, the parties submit the proposed settlement agreement to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as required by California Labor Code section 2699 and file proof of that submission with the court. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on June 18, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.