United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND
SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR COSTS
Troy
L. Nunley S United States District Judge.
Plaintiff's
unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement (ECF No. 27) and unopposed Motion for
Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Settlement Administrator
Costs (ECF No. 26) in the above referenced case came before
this Court, on November 14, 2019, in Courtroom 2 on the 15th
floor before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley, presiding. At the
hearing, the Court GRANTED the Motion for Final Approval,
thereby (1) approving and certifying the class for purposes
of settlement; (2) approving and appointing Kelly Hoover
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as class
representative; (3) approving and appointing Shimoda Law
Corp. as class counsel; (4) approving the proposed class and
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)
settlement; (5) approving Simpluris, Inc. as class action
settlement administrator; (6) approving the notification
procedures and the form and content of the Class Notice; (7)
approving the means of paying out any residue from checks not
timely cashed by class members; and (8) approving and
adopting the proposed implementation schedule. The Court
additionally GRANTED to Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Costs, thereby awarding requested attorney's fees and
litigation costs to class counsel, and awarding settlement
administrator costs to the class action settlement
administrator. The Court indicated that a written order would
issue, and that written order now follows.
Plaintiff
filed this putative class action on May 19, 2017 in the
Superior Court of California, for the County of Sacramento.
(See ECF No. 1.) Defendant Mom365, Inc.
(“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court on
June 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The First Amended Complaint
against Defendant alleges class and PAGA claims for failure
to provide legally compliant rest periods; failure to pay
wages for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime
wages; failure to provide Paid Time Off benefits in violation
of California Labor Code section 227.3; failure to provide
Paid Time Off benefits that complied with the California
Healthy Workplace Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Cal. Lab.
Code sections 245, et seq.); failure to pay all
wages due or owed at termination; and failure to provide
legally complaint wage statements. Plaintiff also alleged
unfair competition claims based on these allegations.
Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies on the PAGA
claims as detailed in the Motion. Defendant denied all of
Plaintiff's claims and denied that this case was
appropriate for class treatment.
The
parties have agreed to a PAGA and class settlement. Defendant
will provide monetary consideration in exchange for a
judgment consistent with the terms of the proposed settlement
as set forth in the Joint Stipulation Regarding Class Action
Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”).
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
May 10, 2019, therein provisionally certifying the class for
settlement purposes. (ECF No. 25, Order electronically filed
May 14, 2019.) Court-approved notices have been issued to
class members in accordance with the Court's Order.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and
California Labor Code § 2699(1), the Court has
considered Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, the unopposed Motion for
Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Administrator Costs, the
declarations filed in support thereof, the Settlement
Agreement, the proposed Class Notice, the proposed
Distribution Form, and other evidence, and HEREBY FINDS AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1.
CERTIFYING A SETTLEMENT CLASS
The
Court finds that certification of the following class for
settlement purposes only is appropriate under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and related case law:
All of Defendant's California employees who were paid
under Defendant's commission, piece rate, and/or
incentive-based compensation system, including but not
limited to, employees working under the photographer job
title from May 17, 2013 to May 14, 2019.
The
Court finds that the settlement class meets the requirements
of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The approximately 1, 430
individuals who fall within the class are sufficiently
numerous and would make joinder impractical. The commonality
and predominance requirements are met since there are
questions of law and fact common to the class and that
predominate over individualized issues, which include the
following alleged policies and practices: the failure of
Defendant's commission, piece rate, and/or incentive
based compensation system to pay for all hours worked; the
failure to provide paid rest periods; the failure to provide
rest periods for every four hours worked or major fraction
thereof; the failure to provide a legally compliant PTO
policy; and the failure to provide legally compliant wage
statements. Additionally, settlement class members seek the
same remedies under state law. The typicality requirement for
settlement purposes is also satisfied since the claims of the
named class representative (Plaintiff) in this case arise
from the same factual bases and are based on the same legal
theory as those applicable to the class members. Furthermore,
the Court finds that a class action is superior to other
forms of adjudication.
The
Court also finds that certification of the settlement class
is required to avoid the impracticality of each class member
litigating similar claims individually. This settlement will
achieve economies of scale for class members with relatively
small individual claims and conserve the resources of the
judicial system.
The
settlement class shall not include Aurora Ruvalcaba Correa,
Ynhi Phan, and Faith E. Velasquez, who all submitted timely,
valid requests to opt out of the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, these individuals will not be subject to the
waivers within the Settlement Agreement and shall not be
entitled to any benefit under the Settlement Agreement.
2.
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE; APPOINTMENT OF CLASS
COUNSEL
The
Court finds that Plaintiff Kelly Hoover and her Counsel,
Galen T. Shimoda and Justin P. Rodriguez of the Shimoda Law
Corp., are adequate representatives of the settlement class.
The Court approves them as class representative and class
counsel, respectively. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel appear
to have any conflicts with the class members, and they have
vigorously prosecuted this action.
3.
APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR
The
Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement, which has been
filed with Plaintiff's Motion. The Court finds that the
Settlement Agreement is in all respects fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court makes this finding based on a
consideration of the strength of Plaintiffs' claims and
Defendant's defenses, as well as the risk, expense,
complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court
also finds there is no evidence of collusion between the
parties and the Settlement Agreement appears to have been
entered into only after arms-length negotiations and
substantial investigation that enabled the parties to make a
reasoned and informed decision regarding settlement. The
Settlement Agreement does not give any improper preferential
treatment to Plaintiff, their counsel, or a particular
segment of the settlement class. The Court also acknowledges
that class members had the opportunity to object to the
settlement at the fairness hearing held before this Court, or
to opt-out of being bound by the preliminarily approved class
...