Former restaurant employees initially filed this case in 2010 as a wage and hour class action against defendants Koji’s Japan Incorporated (Koji’s) and Arthur Parent, Jr., who had been Koji’s president, sole shareholder, and director. After over a decade of litigation which produced several appellate court opinions, the trial court preliminarily approved the parties’ class action settlement agreement. As relevant to the issues presented in this appeal, the preliminarily approved agreement provided for the defendants to make a nonreversionary settlement payment in the total gross amount of $2.2 million, which included an attorney fee award in the amount of $1,040,000 and enhancement awards totaling $100,000 to be distributed among the named plaintiffs and declarants. That agreement also provided that unclaimed class payments would be allocated to a designated cy près recipient.
The trial court’s final order and judgment, however, provided for a reduced attorney fee award in the total amount of $880,000 and reduced enhancement awards totaling $55,500. The trial court’s final order and judgment did not provide for application of the designated cy près recipient and instead provided that unclaimed class payments would be tendered to the State Controller’s Office under the Unclaimed Property law. The plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion by reducing the attorney fee and the enhancement awards and also by rejecting the proposed cy près recipient.
We review the trial court’s final order and judgment for an abuse of discretion. The trial court was not required to explain the reasons why it reduced the attorney fee award or enhancement awards, or why it declined to accept the parties’ designated cy près recipient. The record does not show the trial court misapprehended the governing legal principles or otherwise abused its discretion in approving the class action settlement and entering judgment. We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]
In 2000, Koji’s was incorporated by Parent. (Turman v. Superior Court, supra, G051871.) At all relevant times, Parent was Koji’s president, sole shareholder, and director. (Ibid.) Koji’s owned one sushi and shabu-shabu restaurant in Hollywood, and another such restaurant in Orange County. (Ibid.) The individually named plaintiffs had been employed by Koji’s and worked at one or both of its restaurants at some point during November 2006 through February 2012. (Ibid.) Koji’s was not a profitable business and, by early 2012, had closed both restaurants. (Ibid.)
I.
Plaintiffs Initiate This Action and Parent Is Found to be a Joint Employer
In November 2010, Amanda Quiles, Heather Turman, and Kimberly Dang, as individuals and “on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,” filed a proposed class action against Koji’s and Parent, asserting several state and federal wage and hour claims and alleging violation of California’s unfair competition law. (Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Incorporated, supra, G049238.) Quiles, Turman, and Dang amended their complaint several times to add, among other things, Quiles’s individual wrongful employment ter
[1] On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the following prior opinions in this matter: Quiles v. Parent (Mar. 4, 2020, G056687) (nonpub. opn.); Quiles v. Parent (Nov. 2, 2018, G054907) (nonpub. opn.); Quiles v. Parent (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1000; Turman v. Superior Court (Nov. 7, 2017, G051871) (nonpub. opn.); Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130; and Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Incorporated (Apr. 3, 2015, G049238) (nonpub. opn.).
