Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Echavez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 3, 2017

AMBER ECHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., INC.; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

          Andre E. Jardini, Bar No. 71335 K.E. Myles, Bar No. 243272 KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE Robert L. Starr, Bar No. 183052 THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff AMBER ECHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals

          [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

          The honorable Virginia A. Phillips Judge.

         On March 23, 2017, the Court issued its Minute Order Re: Motion for Approval of Settlement in this matter. The Minute Order granted the unopposed motion of plaintiff for approval of settlement. The Minute Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

         The settlement agreement calls for a judgment to conclude the case.

         Based upon the Order, judgment is entered according to the terms of the settlement.

         EXHIBIT 1

         Present: The Honorable VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings: MINUTE ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (IN Chambers)

         On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff Amber Echavez ("Plaintiff") filed an "Unopposed Motion of Plaintiff for Approval of Settlement" ("Motion"). 1 The Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-15 and VACATES the hearing set on March 27, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Having considered the papers filed in support of the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion for the reasons set forth below.

         I. Background

         On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff Amber Echavez ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. ("Defendants") in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The complaint was brought as a representative action pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2698, el seq,, the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (hereinafter "PAGA"). The complaint alleged Defendants violated California Labor Code Section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001 § 14 by failing to provide suitable seating to their employees. On November 23, 2011, Defendants removed the complaint to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on January 23, 2012; the amended complaint alleged only This matter has been referred to the Chief Judge as the Honorable Gary A. Feess has retired from the bench. PAGA violations. Defendants filed an answer thereto, denying the allegations in the amended complaint, on March 26, 2012.

         After the parties engaged in extensive discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2013. The Honorable Gary A. Feess granted the motion for summary judgment on August 13, 2013. In his ruling, Judge Feess interpreted Wage Order 7-2001(A) and concluded Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' job was a "standing job" because the majority of the tasks they performed during their shifts necessitated standing; as a result, Defendants were not required to provide seating except while the employees were on a meal or rest break. Summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiff's claimed violation of Wage Order 7-2001(B) because the evidence was insufficient to determine whether the seating provided while on breaks was adequate.

         The parties filed a joint motion for reconsideration. They agreed the seating provided while employees were on breaks was not in dispute, but rather sought a ruling as to whether Wage Order 7-2001(B) required adequate seating be provided to employees during their shifts while not actively engaged in duties requiring standing. On September 12, 2013, Judge Feess granted the motion for reconsideration and concluded Wage Order 7-2001(B), like subsection (A), only ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.