Liashenko v. Berendsen, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN LIASHENKO, No. 2:25-cv-01570-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH CLAIM BROUGHT 14 BERENDSEN, INC., PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 12) 16 17 18 This matter is before the court on the parties’ stipulation to dismiss plaintiff’s fourteenth 19 claim brought in his complaint for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act 20 (“PAGA”) (Doc. No. 1-1 at 22–23) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 21 (Doc. No. 12.) The parties request that this claim, to the extent it is brought on behalf of the State 22 of California and other alleged aggrieved employes, be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a 23 settlement agreement. (Id. at 2–3.) 24 Court approval is required for settlement of a PAGA claim. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699. This 25 court has previously determined that, though there is no binding authority governing the standard 26 for court approval of settlement of a PAGA claim, the appropriate standard to be applied is 27 whether the “settlement terms (1) meet the statutory requirements set forth by PAGA, and (2) are 28 fundamentally fair, reasonable and adequate in view of PAGA’s public policy goals.” Perez v. 1 | All Ag, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00927-DAD-EPG, 2021 WL 3129602, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2021). 2 | Here, the parties seek to dismiss the representative claims without prejudice and to separately 3 | dismiss plaintiffs individual claims with prejudice at a later date. (Doc. No. 12 at 2-3.) In this 4 | regard, the court finds that the settlement of the PAGA claim appears fair and reasonable in light 5 | of the settlement not binding the State of California or other alleged aggrieved employees. See 6 | Ortega v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., No. 23-cv-05596-JST, 2025 WL 1906789, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 7 | July 10, 2025) (finding dismissal of PAGA claim to be fair and reasonable where the plaintiffs 8 | were releasing only their individual claims and not affecting future claims of other alleged 9 | aggrieved employees or the State of California) (citing Sandoval v. Brigantine, Inc., No. 20-cv- 10 | 00189-JLS-MSB, 2020 WL 6504914 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020) (same)). 11 For the reasons explained above, the court ADOPTS the parties’ stipulation (Doc. No. 12) 12 | and DISMISSES plaintiff's fourteenth claim brought pursuant to PAGA on behalf of the State of 13 | California and other alleged aggrieved employees without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ May 14, 2026 Da A. 2, ye 16 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28