David Farrell v. BJ's Restaurant Operations Company, No. 2:2020cv03771 - Document 41 (C.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). See Final Judgment for specifics. (jp)

Download PDF
David Farrell v. BJ's Restaurant Operations Company Doc. 41 JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FARRELL 12 Plaintiff CV 20-3771 DSF (Ex) FINAL JUDGMENT 13 v. 14 15 16 BJ’S RESTAURANT OPERATIONS COMPANY 17 Defendant 18 19 20 21 22 Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of 23 24 25 26 27 PAGA Settlement and Release it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. Judgment in this matter is entered in accordance with the terms of the Order and the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release of PAGA Claims (PAGA 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 Settlement Agreement). Unless otherwise provided, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the PAGA Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action, the Plaintiff, the PAGA Settlement Members, and Defendant BJ’s Restaurant Operations Company. This Judgment shall be binding on all PAGA Settlement Members and the State of California. 7 3. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court shall retain 8 jurisdiction with respect to all matters related to the administration and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 implementation of the PAGA Settlement Agreement and any and all claims asserted in, arising out of, or related to the claims made in this lawsuit, including but not limited to all matters related to the settlement and the determination of all controversies relating thereto. 4. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(1)(2), the Court approves the PAGA Settlement Agreement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and consistent with the underlying purpose of PAGA's objectives. 5. The Court further finds that notice of the Settlement was provided to the LWDA, as required by California Labor Code § 2699(1)(2). 6. Plaintiff and Defendant are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the PAGA Settlement Agreement, and specifically, Defendant shall deposit the Total Settlement Payment with the Settlement Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, who will then ensure payments to the LWDA, the PAGA Settlement Members, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's Counsel, as provided for and in the respective amounts set forth in the PAGA Settlement Agreement. 7. This Judgment resolves and extinguishes all PAGA claims of the PAGA Settlement Members and the State of California during the PAGA Period, which is defined as the period from October 7, 2017, through September 16, 2022 (i.e., the date of approval of the PAGA Settlement Agreement). 2 1 2 3 4 5 8. Plaintiffs PAGA claims are dismissed with prejudice. 9. This Judgment is not a finding of any wrongdoing by Defendant but is a result of a stipulated settlement and judgment reached by the Parties. 10. This document shall constitute a judgment. 6 7 8 9 DATED: September 15, 2022 ____________________________ HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.