Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19468
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Daniel Hutchinson (Bar No. 239458)
`dhutchinson@lchb.com
`Lin Y. Chan (Bar No. 255027)
`lchan@lchb.com
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
` BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 956-1008
`
`Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617)
`julian@kingsiegel.com
`Elliot J. Siegel (Bar No. 286798)
`elliot@kingsiegel.com
`KING & SIEGEL LLP
`724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201
`Los Angeles, California 90014
`Telephone: (213) 419-5101
`Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Marcie Le and Karen Dao, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation;
`Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest,
`LLC, an Illinois limited liability
`company; and Walgreens Boots
`Alliance, a Delaware corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 8:18-cv-01548
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
`MOTION TO DIRECT NOTICE TO
`THE CLASS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Hon. David O. Carter
`
` Hearing Date: April 5, 2021
` Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 33 Page ID
`#:19469
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`III.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .................................................................. vi
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Procedural History ................................................................................ 2
`B.
`Class Certification ................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Appeal ................................................................................................... 3
`D.
`Settlement Negotiations ........................................................................ 3
`SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ............................................ 4
`A.
`Settlement Class .................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Settlement Consideration ...................................................................... 4
`C.
`Proposed Notice Plan ............................................................................ 5
`D.
`Settlement Release ................................................................................ 6
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 7
`V.
`THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. ........ 7
`A.
`The Class Has Been Zealously Represented. ........................................ 8
`B.
`The Settlement Agreement Results from Arm’s-Length
`Negotiations. ....................................................................................... 11
`The Settlement Agreement Represents Substantial Relief for the
`Class. ................................................................................................... 13
`1.
`The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate. ................. 13
`2.
`Payment to Class Members Is Straightforward. ....................... 16
`3.
`Counsel Will Seek Reasonable Attorney’s Fees. ..................... 17
`4.
`There Are No Other Related Agreements. ............................... 18
`The Agreement Treats Class Members Equitably. ............................. 19
`D.
`VI. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS MERITS CERTIFICATION. ....................... 20
`A.
`The Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, and Adequacy
`Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Met. ................................................ 21
`The Settlement Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule
`23(b)(3). .............................................................................................. 21
`The Court Should Appoint Class Counsel. ......................................... 23
`C.
`VII. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE NOTICE PROGRAM AND
`DIRECT NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. ................................ 24
`VIII. THE FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED. .......... 25
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 33 Page ID
`#:19470
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Abelar v. Am. Residential Servs., L.L.C.,
`No. 19-00726, 2019 WL 6054607 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) ............................. 12
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................. 20, 21, 24
`Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc.,
`2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016) ............................................................................................ 17
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015).......................................................................... 13
`Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`No. 13-cv-0561, 2014 WL 6473804 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) .......................... 18
`Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court,
`53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) ........................................................................................ 17
`Carter v. Anderson Merchs., LP,
`Nos. 08-0025, 09-0216, 2010 WL 1946784 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010) ........... 7, 11
`Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`No. 07-cv-1182, 2010 WL 2991486 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2010) ........................... 18
`Deaver v. Compass Bank,
`No. 13-cv-0222, 2015 WL 8526982 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) .......................... 14
`Downey Surgical Clinic, Inc. v. Optuminsight, Inc.,
`No. CV09-5457, 2016 WL 5938722 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) .......................... 14
`Eisen v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-09405-CAS, 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) ............. 11
`Epstein v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC,
`No. 19-cv-1323 (C.D. Cal.) .................................................................................. 16
`Franco v. Ruiz Food Prods.,
`No. 10-cv-02354, 2012 WL 5941801 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) ........................ 11
`Gaudin v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-01663, 2015 WL 7454183 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) ........................ 19
`Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs.,
`No. C-06-4068, 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................ 14
`In re Am. Apparel, Inc. S’holder Litig.,
`No. CV 10-06352, 2014 WL 10212865 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2014) ...................... 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 33 Page ID
`#:19471
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 12
`In re Diet Drugs,
`Nos. 1203, 99-20593, 2000 WL 1222042 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2000) ................... 22
`In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
`No. C 06-4333, 2013 WL 12333442 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) ............................. 22
`In re Heritage Bond Litig.,
`No. 02-ml-01475, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) .................. 11, 12
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-02509, 2015 WL 5159441 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) ......................... 20
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 7, 20, 21, 22
`In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 13-MD-02420, 2020 WL 7264559 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020) ..................... 21
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 18
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 20, 24
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 17
`In re Toys “R” Us-Del., Inc. Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)
`Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................... 11
`In re Walgreen Co. Wage & Hour Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-7664, 2014 WL 12853545 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ........................ 23
`Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.,
`1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016) ............................................................................................ 17
`Lee v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`No. 8:13-cv-00511 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) ..................................................... 13
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
`151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 14
`Malta v. Federal Home Mortg. Corp.,
`No. 10-cv-1290, 2013 WL 444619 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ............................... 23
`Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DirecTV,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................... 12, 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 33 Page ID
`#:19472
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`Noll v. eBay, Inc.,
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015).......................................................................... 19
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`688 F2d. 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................ 12
`Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 17
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 7, 15, 16
`Roes, 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC,
`944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 7
`Singh v. Roadrunner Intermodal Servs., LLC,
`No. 15-cv-1497, 2019 WL 316814 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2019) .............................. 16
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.,
`314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) .......................................................................... 24
`Stovall-Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-02540, 2015 WL 3776765 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) ........................ 14
`Tarlecki v. bebe Stores, Inc.,
`No. C 05-1777, 2009 WL 3720872 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2009) ............................. 13
`Thompson v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 18-cv-05422, 2020 WL 6145105 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2020) ........................ 19
`Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
`529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) .................................................................................. 7
`Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ....................................................................... 18
`Vandervort v. Balboa Capital Corp.,
`8 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................... 20
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 17
`Weeks v. Kellogg Co.,
`No. 09-cv-8102, 2013 WL 6531177 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013) .......................... 14
`White v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 05-cv-01070 (C.D. Cal.) ................................................................................ 22
`Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc’n Co.,
`129 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 33 Page ID
`#:19473
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ...................................................................................... 23, 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) ............................................................................................. 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ................................................................................................. 19
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ............................................................................... 7, 8, 20, 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ...................................................................................... passim
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3) ............................................................................................. 18
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) ............................................................................................ 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) ............................................................................................ 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, 2018 Advisory Committee notes ..................................... 8, 16, 19
`TREATISES
`Rubenstein, 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 7:35 (5th ed. 2020) ............................. 21
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004) ......................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19474
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 5, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., via telephone
`or videoconference pursuant to the Order of the Chief Judge 21-002 and the United
`States District Court for the Central District of California’s Continuity of
`Operations Plan (“COOP”), Plaintiffs Marcie Le and Karen Dao (“Plaintiffs”), on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, will and hereby do move the
`Court for an order granting their Unopposed Motion to Direct Notice to the Class:
`1.
`finding that the Court will likely approve the proposed class action
`settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2);
`2.
`finding that the Court will likely certify the Settlement Class pursuant
`to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
`3.
`directing notice to the Settlement Class in connection with the
`proposed class action settlement, and approving the proposed forms and manner
`thereof;
`4.
`appointing plaintiffs Marcie Le and Karen Dao as representatives for
`the Settlement Class for the purposes of disseminating notice;
`5.
`appointing King & Siegel LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
`Bernstein, LLP as counsel for the Settlement Class;
`6.
`authorizing retention of CPT Group, Inc. as notice and claims
`administrator; and
`7.
`scheduling a hearing to determine whether the proposed settlements
`are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) and whether the Settlement
`Class should be certified.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion to Direct Notice
`to the Class; the following memorandum of points and authorities; the Declarations
`of Daniel M. Hutchinson and Elliot J. Siegel, filed concurrently herewith; and such
`other matters as the Court may consider.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19475
`
`I.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of the approximately 4,629 retail
`pharmacists who worked for Walgreen Co., Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest,
`LLC, and Walgreens Boots Alliance (collectively, “Walgreens”) from July 27, 2014
`through the present. Plaintiffs alleged that Walgreens failed to provide its
`pharmacists with off-duty breaks. Following extensive discovery, motion practice,
`and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties reached a settlement. Plaintiffs
`request that the Court issue an order (1) finding that the Court would likely approve
`the settlement and certify the class, and (2) approving notice to members of that
`proposed Settlement Class.
`Plaintiffs vigorously prosecuted the case and obtained an excellent result in
`the face of extraordinary risks. The proposed settlement provides substantial
`compensation to Settlement Class Members—a common, non-reversionary fund of
`$6,800,000 to be disbursed automatically on a pro rata basis, without the need for a
`claim form. The settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate. Settlement
`Class certification upon final approval is likely because, as the Court previously
`found, Plaintiffs satisfy numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality, and the
`hotly-contested facts that the Court found precluded a finding of predominance
`during the litigation are inapposite in the context of settlement.
`Pursuant to Rule 23, therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
`(1) find that it will likely approve the settlement; (2) find it will likely certify the
`Settlement Class upon final approval; (3) direct notice to the Settlement Class; (4)
`appoint Marcie Le and Karen Dao as representatives for the Settlement Class for
`purposes of disseminating notice; (5) appoint Plaintiffs’ Counsel as counsel for the
`Settlement Class; (6) authorize retention of CPT Group, Inc. as notice and claims
`administrator; and (7) schedule a final fairness hearing, at which class members
`may be heard regarding the settlement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19476
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Procedural History
`On July 27, 2018, Ms. Le filed this action in California Superior Court. See
`Dkt. No. 1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on August 30, 2018. Id. On
`April 9, 2019, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) added Ms. Dao and
`asserted six class claims for violations of the California Labor Code;1 the California
`Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code § 2698 et seq.; and Business
`& Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Dkt. No. 35. The FAC also asserted three
`individual claims on behalf of Ms. Le. Id. ¶¶ 89–116.
`B. Class Certification
`On February 13, 2020, after substantial discovery, Plaintiffs moved for
`certification of a class comprised of “all persons who are and/or were employed as
`non-exempt pharmacists by Walgreens in any Walgreens’ California retail store or
`express pharmacy between July 27, 2014 and the date of trial.” See, e.g., Dkt. Nos.
`99 & 126. Walgreens’ opposition argued, inter alia, that Plaintiffs’ claims were not
`typical of the putative class given their positions and other circumstances of their
`employment; Plaintiffs’ interpretation of California law governing rest breaks was
`incorrect; and individual pharmacies’ practices and individual pharmacists’
`interpretations of Walgreens’ policies predominated over common issues. Dkt. No.
`104. Plaintiffs replied on April 9, 2020. Dkt. No. 114. Walgreens filed a sur-reply
`on April 17, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 121 & 123.
`On April 27, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
`Dkt. No. 126 (“Cert. Order”). Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23’s numerosity, typicality,
`adequacy, and commonality requirements. Id. at 6–10. While Walgreens’ policies
`
`1 The FAC alleged: (1) failure to provide rest and meal periods or premium pay in
`lieu thereof (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, 558, and 1198); (2) failure to provide
`complete and accurate wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226, 226.3); (3) failure
`to pay earned wages when due (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203); and (4) failure to
`maintain accurate records (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226(a), 1174(d), and 1174.5).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`
`- 2 -
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19477
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`applied class-wide, the Court concluded that common issues did not predominate
`because Plaintiffs had not adduced sufficient evidence showing that the policies
`themselves—as opposed to, for example, individual pharmacies’ applications of
`those policies—caused pharmacists to miss rest breaks. Id. at 11–14.
`Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. Plaintiffs argued that reconsideration
`was warranted due in part to Walgreens’ production of new discovery. Dkt. No.
`132. The Court denied the motion on June 5, 2020. Dkt. No. 144.
`C. Appeal
`On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal. See
`9th Cir. Case No. 20-80101, Dkt. No. 1-2. The Ninth Circuit granted the Petition
`on July 22, 2020. See id., Dkt. No. 9. On October 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their
`opening brief on appeal, as well as nine volumes of excerpts of record. 9th Cir.
`Case No. 20-55743, Dkt. Nos. 12–13, 17–19. Before Walgreens’ brief in
`opposition was due, the parties reached a class settlement pursuant to the mediator’s
`proposal discussed below. See id., Dkt. No. 24. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiffs
`moved to stay the appeal pending approval of the proposed settlement before this
`Court. Id. On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion and stayed
`appellate proceedings until March 25, 2021. Id., Dkt. No. 25.
`D.
`Settlement Negotiations
`On November 19, 2019, the parties attended an all-day private mediation
`with Lynn Frank, an experienced mediator with Frank & Feder Mediators.
`Hutchinson Decl. ¶ 32; Siegel Decl. ¶¶ 25–28. On August 17, 2020, the parties
`attended a second day-long mediation session with Ms. Frank. Hutchinson Decl.
`¶ 34; Siegel Decl. ¶ 28. The parties did not resolve the matter, but continued to
`litigate. The mediator, however, remained engaged with the parties and, after
`subsequent communications with both parties regarding potential settlement,
`submitted a final mediator’s proposal in light of the parties’ respective risks on
`appeal. Hutchinson Decl. ¶ 35; Siegel Decl. ¶ 29. On December 14, 2020, the
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19478
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`parties accepted the mediator’s proposal and agreed to the proposed settlement. Id.
`III. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
`A.
`Settlement Class
`The Settlement Class is comprised of “all persons who are and/or were
`employed by Defendants in California at any time during the Class Period as hourly,
`non-exempt pharmacy interns, pharmacy intern graduates, pharmacists, staff
`pharmacists, multi-location pharmacists (both assigned and unassigned), and/or
`pharmacy managers.”2 Hutchinson Decl., Ex. 1 (“Agreement”) ¶ I.C. Walgreens
`does not oppose certification of the Settlement Class. Id. ¶ III.F.
`B.
`Settlement Consideration
`The Agreement requires Walgreens to create a Gross Settlement Fund of
`$6,800,000. Agreement ¶¶ I.O, III.A, III.N. After payment of the settlement
`administrator’s costs, Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, Class
`Representative enhancement awards, and the share attributable to the LWDA’s
`portion of PAGA penalties, approximately $3,808,333.33 will be available for
`distribution to class members. Id. ¶ III.N.6; see also id. ¶¶ I.P, III.A, III.N.2–5.
`Class Members will receive an average of approximately $822.71 each. Class
`Members’ Individual Settlement Payments will be distributed out of the net fund by
`checks mailed to each class member at their last known mailing address.3 Id.
`¶ III.N.1. Checks will be valid for 180 days from the date of the check. Id.
`¶ III.N.1.d. Subject to Court approval, funds from checks that remain uncashed
`after that period shall be deposited with the California State Controller’s Office’s
`Unclaimed Property Division in the name of the Settlement Class Member. Id.
`Each Settlement Class Member’s award will be calculated by the Settlement
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms herein refer to and have the same
`meaning as the terms defined in Section I (“Definitions”) of the Agreement.
`3 The Settlement Administrator will use skip-trace and other methods of locating
`alternative addresses for those class members whose checks are returned as
`undelivered. Agreement ¶ III.M.4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19479
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Administrator based on a pro rata distribution, depending on each class member’s
`number of Compensable Workweeks worked during the class period. Id. ¶ III.N.1.a.
`A multiplier (2.0x) will be applied to Compensable Workweeks before June 1, 2018.
`Id. The Agreement requires Walgreens to supply the Settlement Administrator with
`the Class Data—e.g., class members’ names, last known addresses, dates of
`employment—necessary to calculate and mail the Individual Settlement Payments.
`Id. ¶¶ I.F, III.M.1, III.N.1.a. $500,000 of the Gross Settlement Fund be allocated
`for settlement of claims for civil penalties under the PAGA. Id. ¶ III.N.4.
`$375,000 of that amount will be paid to the California Labor Workforce
`Development Agency; the remaining $125,000 will be distributed to Class
`Members as part of the Gross Settlement Fund. Id.
`C.
`Proposed Notice Plan
`The proposed notice plan incorporates well-established best practices, and
`provides clear information regarding the Agreement’s terms, the Final Fairness
`Hearing, Settlement Class Members’ rights to dispute Walgreens’ records regarding
`the Compensable Workweeks worked by class members and to object to or opt out
`of the Settlement, and the request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Agreement
`¶ III.M.2, 5–7; Agreement, Ex. 1 (“Notice Packet”). CPT Group, Inc. (“CPT”) is a
`leading class administration firm that will provide settlement notice and
`administration. Id. ¶¶ I.CC, III.L. Under the proposed notice plan:
`1. Walgreens will provide CPT with the Class Data for the purposes of
`preparing and mailing Notice Packets to Class Members. Agreement ¶ III.M.1.
`2.
`CPT will search the National Change of Address Database (and/or
`similar databases) and otherwise exercise its best judgment to determine the current
`mailing address for each Settlement Class Member. Id. ¶ III.M.3.
`3.
`CPT will disseminate Notice Packets to Settlement Class Members via
`First Class U.S. Mail. Id.; Notice Packet.
`4.
`Any Notice Packets returned to CPT as non-delivered on or before the
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19480
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Response Deadline shall be re-mailed to the forwarding address affixed thereto. If
`no forwarding address is provided, CPT will attempt to determine the correct
`address by lawful use of skip-tracing, or other search using the name, address,
`and/or Social Security number of the class member involved. Id. ¶ III.M.4. Class
`members who received a re-mailed Notice Packet will have 15 extra days to
`respond to the Notice. Id.
`D.
`Settlement Release
`In exchange for the Settlement consideration, the Settlement Class agrees to a
`release of Walgreens’ liability tailored and limited to the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims
`in this litigation. Agreement ¶¶ I.X, III.C. The Released Claims are “any and all
`claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs,
`expenses, attorney’s fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or
`nature, whether known or unknown, contingent or accrued, that are alleged, related
`to or that reasonably could have arisen out of the same facts alleged in the Action
`on a class or representative basis, including, but not limited to: (1) failure to
`provide rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide
`complete and accurate wage statements; (4) failure to pay earned wages when due;
`(5) failure to maintain accurate records; (6) PAGA penalties based on any of the
`foregoing claims in subsection (1)-(5); and (7) unlawful business practices in
`violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. based on any of
`the foregoing claims in subsections (1)-(5) above.” The Released Claims also
`include “claims that were raised, or that reasonably could have been raised, under
`the applicable Wage Orders and California Labor Code provisions, including Labor
`Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1174.5, 1198 and/or
`2698 et seq., based on alleged violations of these Labor Code provisions and
`applicable Wage Orders.” Id. ¶ I.X. “The period of the Released Claims shall be
`the Class Period.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECT
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 155 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 33 Page ID
`
`#:19481
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`There is a “strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where
`complex class action litigation is concerned.” In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ.
`Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 556 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc); Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
`529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[T]here is an overriding public interest in
`settling and quieting litigation . . . particularly . . . in class action suits.”). Courts
`recognize as a matter of sound policy that settlements of disputed claims are
`encouraged and settlement approval hearings should not “reach any ultimate
`conclusions on the contested issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the
`dispute.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
`quotes and citation omitted).
`At this stage, the question is whether the settlement “is ‘within the range of
`possible approval’ and whether or not notice should be sent to class members.”
`Carter v. Anderson Merchs., LP, Nos. 08-0025, 09-0216, 2010 WL 1946784, at *4
`(C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010). “[S]ettlement approval requires a higher standard of
`fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be required under Rule
`23(e)” only if “the parties negotiate a settlement agreement before the class has
`been certified.” Roes, 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1048 (9th Cir.
`2019).
`Before notifying the class of a proposed settlement, Rule 23(e)(2) requires
`the Court to determine whether