Petitt v. Exigency Healthcare Services, LLC

Background

Anietta C. Petitt sued Exigency Healthcare Services, LLC, Felixberto Matamis, and Karen Panilio. The opinion states that the defendants employed Petitt and others as caregivers for elderly clients, and that Exigency was owned and operated by Matamis and Panilio.

Petitt asserted one claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law, and seven claims under the California Labor Code. She also brought a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows an employee to seek civil penalties on behalf of the state and other affected employees.

Petitt alleged that Exigency misclassified her and other workers as independent contractors rather than employees. She further alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime, provide compliant meal and rest periods, timely pay wages, provide compliant wage statements, and reimburse work-related expenses. The defendants disputed that Petitt was entitled to overtime compensation or that they failed to pay what she claimed was owed. The parties also disputed whether a California exemption for personal attendants applied to Petitt.

The parties conducted discovery, including production of pay and time records. They participated in mediation in June 2022 and reached the settlement presented to the court.

Settlement Terms and Court Review

The total settlement amount was $160,000. It included:

- $65,000 to Petitt for her individual claims for unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the FLSA and California law; - approximately $34,000 in PAGA penalties, with 75% going to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% going to affected workers; - up to $53,328 in attorneys’ fees, subject to court approval; - up to $6,000 in costs for Petitt’s counsel; and - up to $10,000 for settlement administration.

The PAGA settlement covered caregivers who worked with, by, or through the defendants in California between September 29, 2020, and October 31, 2021. Counsel estimated that approximately 112 employees were in the PAGA settlement pool.

For the FLSA claim, the court found a genuine dispute about whether Petitt qualified as an employee under the FLSA, whether she worked more than 40 hours per week, and whether she was owed overtime. Petitt estimated her unpaid overtime at $41,859.46; including possible liquidated damages, the maximum FLSA recovery identified by the court was $83,718.92. The court found that the $65,000 individual allocation—approximately 77.6% of that maximum FLSA recovery—was a fair and reasonable compromise. The court also found the release of claims reasonable and not broader than necessary.

For the PAGA claim, the court found that Petitt had submitted the proposed settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency as required. Applying factors used to assess whether settlements are fair, adequate, and reasonable, the court approved the approximately $34,000 PAGA allocation. The court considered the litigation risks, the defendants’ asserted ability to pay, the discovery of records for approximately 112 employees, and the defendants’ post-lawsuit reclassification of workers as employees and correction of their pay practices.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Petitt requested $53,328 in attorneys’ fees. Her counsel stated that a lodestar calculation—reasonable hourly rates multiplied by reasonable hours—would produce $63,385 in fees. The court found insufficient support for a fee award exceeding 30% of the $160,000 settlement fund. It noted that counsel had not submitted actual billing records, had not specifically attributed work to the two attorneys, and sought rates higher than rates awarded to the same counsel in other cases.

The court therefore granted the motion to approve the settlement but limited the attorneys’ fee award to $48,000, or 30% of the settlement fund. It also found that Petitt adequately supported the requested $2,805.57 in costs.

Disposition

The court granted Petitt’s motion, approved the parties’ settlement agreement, and awarded Petitt’s counsel $48,000 in attorneys’ fees and $2,805.57 in costs. The order did not decide whether the defendants actually violated the wage laws; it approved the parties’ compromise of those disputed claims.