Magnetti v. The Highest Craft CA4/1

Filed 6/23/25 Magnetti v. The Highest Craft CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JOSHUA MAGNETTI, D084033 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CVRI2105547) THE HIGHEST CRAFT, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents; MARIA LOPEZ, Intervener and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Affirmed. Daily Aljian, Justin E. Daily, Simon Kwak, Shelly D. Song; Torus, Daniel J. Hyun and David Alami, for Intervener and Appellant. Falakassa Law, Joshua S. Falakassa; Bokhour Law Group, Mehrdad Bokhour and Zachary Cavanagh, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.  Joshua Magnetti and Maria Lopez were simultaneously suing their employer for various wage and hour violations on a class and representative basis under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), but Magnetti reached a settlement agreement with the employer first. After Magnetti sought approval of the settlement in the trial court, Lopez successfully intervened in Magnetti’s case and raised several objections to the settlement. Ultimately, the court rejected Lopez’s contentions, approved the settlement, and entered judgment. Lopez appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in approving the settlement because Magnetti’s counsel failed to adequately investigate one of the several claims resolved by the settlement agreement, and his prelitigation PAGA notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) was deficient. We conclude that although Lopez has standing to assert these claims on appeal, her contentions fail on the merits. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between May and November 2021, Magnetti worked as a delivery driver for The Highest Craft, LLC (THC, doing business as HyperWolf), which provides on-demand delivery of cannabis to customers throughout Southern California. A month after leaving his employment, Magnetti filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees against THC. He alleged several violations of the Labor Code— failure to pay wages, meal and rest period violations, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses (including a reasonable portion of monthly cell phone bills), wage statement violations, and waiting time penalties—as well as a violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). 2  Around the same time, Magnetti submitted a letter to the LWDA, with service to THC, giving notice of his intention to pursue civil penalties against THC pursuant to PAGA. The notice letter began by explaining that counsel represented Magnetti “and a proposed group of current and former non- exempt employees working for [THC] and any of its affiliated and/or predecessor or merged entities in the State of California for violations of the California Labor Code . . . .” It then stated that Magnetti wished to bring a representative action on behalf of himself, the State of California, and the following group of “ ‘aggrieved employees’: [¶] All current and former non- exempt driver employees who work or worked for The Highest Craft, LLC, in any of its facilities in California, during the one year immediately preceding the filing of this PAGA Notice and continuing into the present and ongoing . . . .” The letter went on to describe the Labor Code violations raised in Magnetti’s class action complaint. For instance, Magnetti claimed the aggrieved employees were required to load their vehicles with product before clocking in; had to install THC’s propriety smartphone application on their personal phones, which they were required to answer at all times (including during meal and rest periods); and often worked more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week without overtime pay. When the LWDA declined to investigate the case, Magnetti filed an amended complaint adding a PAGA cause of action in June 2022. In September 2022, Magnetti and THC attended private mediation and eventually reached a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties stipulated that Magnetti would file