United States District Court, C.D. California
AMBER ECHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., INC.; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
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
honorable Virginia A. Phillips Judge.
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.
settlement agreement calls for a judgment to conclude the
upon the Order, judgment is entered according to the terms of
The Honorable VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, CHIEF UNITED STATES
MINUTES - GENERAL
MINUTE ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (IN
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
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.
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.
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 ...