The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen United States District Judge
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
The Court has received and considered the proposed Joint Class Action Settlement Agreement among Plaintiffs and Defendants (hereinafter the "Settlement Agreement")*fn1 ; has previously granted preliminary approval of the class settlement that provided for conditional class certification; has been informed by declarations that notice of the settlement has been provided to the Class (as defined below); has held a fairness hearing at which all parties appeared by their Counsel and at which the Class Members were afforded the opportunity to object to the proposed settlement; has received and reviewed briefing and evidence as to why the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the represented class; and has considered all other arguments and submissions in connection with the proposed settlement.
NOW THEREFORE, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
1. The Settlement Agreement and the terms therein are fair, just, reasonable and adequate as to the settling parties, including the Settlement Class, and is hereby finally approved in all respects. The parties are hereby directed to perform the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Settlement Class represented herein by Plaintiffs is defined as all current and former non-exempt employees (i.e., employees paid on an hourly basis and eligible to receive overtime compensation) (a) employed by Gate Gourmet within the State of California at any time during the period of March 7, 2003 through October 20, 2010, and (b) employed by Gate Safe within the State of California at any time during the period of June 14, 2003 through October 20, 2010 (the "Class" or "Class Members").
3. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the requirements of due process, the Settlement Class has been given proper and adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement and the Fairness Hearing, such notice having been carried out in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Notice and notice methodology implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Preliminary Approval Order (a) were appropriate and reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice; and (b) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law. The parties have complied fully with the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
4. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's-length by experienced counsel who were fully informed of the facts and circumstances of the action and of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. The Settlement Agreement was reached after the parties had completed extensive fact discovery and had filed briefs in support of and opposing class certification. Class Counsel and Gate's Counsel are therefore well positioned to evaluate the benefits of the Settlement Agreement, taking into account the expense, risk, and uncertainty of protracted litigation over numerous questions of fact and law.
5. The Court finds that the requirements of the United States Constitution, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and any other applicable laws have been met as to the "Settlement Class" defined above, in that, for settlement purposes:
a. The Settlement Class is cohesive and well defined;
b. The members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable;
c. The Court finds that there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class, including whether the Settlement is fair;
d. The Court finds that the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the members of the Settlement Class;
e. The Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that: (i) the interests of Class Representatives and the nature of their alleged claims are consistent with those of the members of the Settlement Class; (ii) there appear to be no conflicts between or among the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class; and (iii) Class Representatives and the members of the Settlement Class are represented by ...