United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S
FEES, COSTS, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF AWARDS RE:
DKT. NOS. 168, 170
LUCY
H. KOH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July
3, 2019, after the parties filed a Third Amended Settlement
(“Settlement Agreement”) and Third Amended Class
Notice, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
parties' Joint Motion for Class Action Settlement and
Release. ECF No. 162 (“July 3, 2019 Preliminary
Approval Order”); see also ECF Nos. 159-1,
159-2. On August 30, 2019, the parties notified the court
that the appointed Settlement Administrator made material
errors in the Class Member Settlement Information Sheet that
was mailed to class members. ECF No. 165. On September 3,
2019, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
approve the mailing of a corrected Class Member Settlement
Information Sheet.
On
September 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and class representative
plaintiff awards. ECF No. 168. On October 17, 2019, the
parties filed their joint motion for final approval of class
action settlement. ECF No. 170. The motion for attorney's
fees, costs, and class representative plaintiff awards and
the joint motion for final approval of class action
settlement came on for a hearing before this Court on
November 21, 2019. The Court raised issues regarding final
approval of the settlement, Class Counsel's costs, and
Class Counsel's billing records both before and during
the November 21, 2019 hearing, and the parties filed
additional supplemental declarations in response. ECF Nos.
172-182.
Due and
adequate notice having been given to Class Members as
required by the Court's July 3, 2019 Preliminary Approval
Order and September 3, 2019 Order Approving Mailing of
Corrected Class Member Settlement Information; and the Court
having considered the motion for attorney's fees, costs,
and class representative plaintiff awards, the motion for
final approval of class action settlement, the Settlement
Agreement, the arguments of counsel at the November 21, 2019
hearing, and supplemental declarations following the November
21, 2019 hearing; and having received no objections to the
settlement; and determining that the settlement is fair,
adequate and reasonable, it is hereby ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, a Notice of
Proposed Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement
Class, Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and Hearing Date
for Final Court Approval; a Class Member Settlement
Information Sheet; and an Election Not to Participate in
Settlement were sent in English and Spanish to each Class
Member by first-class U.S. mail. These papers informed Class
Members of the terms of the Settlement, their right to
receive a Settlement Share, their right to object to the
Settlement or to elect not to participate in the Settlement
and pursue their own remedies, and their right to appear in
person or by counsel at the final approval hearing and be
heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods
of time were provided by each of these procedures. No Class
Members filed written objections to the proposed Settlement
as part of this notice period or stated an intention to
appear at the final approval hearing. The Court finds and
determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate
protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the
Court to make an informed decision regarding approval of the
Settlement based on the responses of Class Members. The Court
finds and determines that the notice provided in this case
was the best notice practicable and satisfied the
requirements of law and due process.
2. In
addition to the notice to the Class, pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715
(“CAFA”), the Attorney General of the United
States and the appropriate state official in each state in
which a Class Member resides have been given notice of the
Settlement. Pursuant to CAFA, not later than 10 days after
the motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement was
filed with the Court, Centerplate served upon the appropriate
state official of each state in which a Class Member resides
and the appropriate federal official a notice of the
Settlement consisting of a copy of the operative complaint in
this action; a notice of the scheduled judicial hearing; the
Settlement with its exhibits; and the names of Class Members
who reside in each state and the estimated proportionate
share of the claims of Class Members in each state to the
entire Settlement. The notice of Settlement also invited
comment on the Settlement. The Court finds and determines
that Centerplate's notice of the Settlement was timely,
adequate, and compliant with the statutory requirements of
CAFA.
3. In
addition to the notice to the Class and the CAFA notice
described above, the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (the “LWDA”) has been given
timely notice of the Settlement pursuant to the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(1)(2). The
notice of Settlement invited comment on the Settlement. The
Court finds and determines that this notice of the Settlement
was timely, adequate, and compliant with PAGA.
4. For
the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, the
Court finds and determines that the proposed Class, as
defined in the definitions section of the Settlement and
conditionally certified by the Preliminary Approval Order,
meets all of the legal requirements for class certification,
and it is hereby ordered that the Class is finally approved
and certified as a class for purposes of the Settlement.
5. The
Settlement Administrator noted that it received opt outs from
71 Class Members, though 16 of those opt outs were deemed
deficient. ECF No. 178 ¶ 5. The Settlement Administrator
followed up with the 16 Class Members who submitted allegedly
deficient opt outs. Of the 16 Class Members who submitted
allegedly deficient opt outs, 4 Class Members confirmed that
they were opting out. Of the 12 remaining Class Members with
allegedly deficient opt outs, the Court finds that 6 are
valid opt outs and that 6 do not qualify as opt outs.
6. The
Court finds that the opt outs for the following Class Members
are valid: (1) Raymond Chestnut, ECF No. 178, Ex. A; (2)
Kirsten Clauveh, id., Ex. B; (3) Jose Alfredo Vera,
id., Ex. C; (4) Daniel Schwartz, id., Ex.
D; (5) Sandra Barrera, id., Ex. E; and (6) Carol
Perrigo, id., Ex. F.
7. The
Court finds that the following Class Members did not intend
to opt out of the Settlement: (1) Susanna Wong, id.,
Ex. G; (2) Anderson Penn, id., Ex. H; (3)
Christopher Moore, id., Ex. I; (4) Hnin Lwin,
id., Ex. J; (5) David Bonilla, id., Ex. K;
and (6) Ming Run Xie, id., Ex. L.
8. The
Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member
and that the Class Members who did not timely submit valid
opt outs in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the
Preliminary Approval Order will be bound by the Settlement,
that the Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all
terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby
are ordered to be consummated.
9. The
Court finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be
paid to the Class Members, as provided for by the Settlement,
are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby gives final
approval to and orders the payment of those amounts be made
to the Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in
accordance with the Settlement.
10.
Final approval shall be with respect to: All non-exempt
employees of Centerplate who worked for Centerplate in the
State of California at any time from May 24, 2013, to March
31, 2019, excluding those individuals who already have
resolved all the claims asserted in the Action, whether by
settlement or adjudication.
11. The
named Plaintiffs Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan are
suitable representatives and are hereby appointed the
representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court finds
that Plaintiffs' investment and commitment to the
litigation and its outcome ensured adequate and zealous
advocacy for the ...