`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf of
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, and
`DOES 1 through 100,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
`SETTLEMENT
`
`(Doc. 75)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Luis Salas Razo asserts AT&T Mobility Services failed to comply with California’s wage and
`
`hour laws by failing to pay all wages due and provide proper meal and rest breaks. Razo now seeks
`
`preliminary approval of a settlement reached in this action. Specifically, Razo seeks: (1) conditional
`
`certification of the settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement terms; (3) appointment
`
`of Razo as the class representative; (4) appointment of the firm of Bradley/Grombacher LLP as class
`
`counsel; (5) approval of the class notice materials; (6) appointment of Atticus Administration, LLC, as
`
`the settlement administrator; and (7) scheduling for final approval. (Doc. 75.)
`
`The Court reviewed the proposed settlement between the parties, as well as the moving papers,
`
`and finds the matter suitable for decision without oral arguments pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and
`
`General Order 618. For the following reasons, the motion for preliminary approval of the class
`
`settlement is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Razo was employed a sales representative at the AT&T Mobility Store located in Madera,
`
`California. (Doc. 41 at 4, ¶ 11.) Razo asserts he worked for AT&T “for approximately eleven years”
`
`until his termination in June 2018. (Id.) He alleges AT&T “routinely failed to properly calculate the
`
`overtime and double time rate of pay.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 25.) Razo asserts AT&T “failed to include its
`
`employees’ total compensation including bonuses and commissions when calculating the regular rate
`
`for the purposes of determining overtime wages owed and thus routinely underpaid employees for
`
`overtime wages owed.” (Id.) Razo contends this underpayment was “evidenced in [his] paycheck and
`
`accompanying wage statement issued June 13, 2018.” (Id., ¶ 26.)
`
`He alleges the wage statements also “failed to properly list all hours worked which again resulted
`
`in an underpayment of wages including overtime and double time wages to employees.” (Doc. 4 at 6,
`
`¶ 27.) He contends, “[t]his resulted in failure to pay wages for all hours worked at appropriate rates,
`
`and overtime violations for work performed over eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per
`
`week.” (Id.) For example, Razo asserts his wage statement from June 13, 2018, “incorrectly reflects
`
`that the total hours worked because the hours associated with all of the line items add up to 106.08, but
`
`the total hours worked line item only lists 81.98 hours.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 27.)
`
`Razo asserts he and others “received paychecks without proper wages, as meal period
`
`premiums were not paid at the proper rate, and the regular rate of pay was miscalculated.” (Doc. 41 at
`
`7, ¶ 28.) Razo contends AT&T paid premiums for missed meal periods at his “base hourly rate, rather
`
`than the regular rate of pay.” (Id.) According to Razo, the miscalculation was “evidenced in [his]
`
`paycheck and accompanying wage statement issued June 1, 2018, which shows the untaken meal
`
`break premium is paid at [the] base hourly rate,” without incorporating his commission in the premium
`
`23
`
`rate paid. (Id.)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Razo contends “on routine basis he and all other aggrieved employees received wage
`
`statements in violation of Labor Code §226, as hours and rates were not properly shown on wage
`
`statements.” (Doc. 41 at 7, ¶ 29 (emphasis omitted).) He alleges, “where there are payments for items
`
`such as cash awards, commission, taxable non-cash-awards, miscellaneous payment, or overtime ‘true
`
`up’ payments, there are no specific details as to rate or hours in the description or analysis that make
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`up the payment.” (Id.) He asserts the wage statements also violated California law because:
`
`“premium pay for meal period violations were paid at the… base hourly rate, rather than his regular
`
`rate of pay; the total hours listed are incorrect because the hours associated with the wage statement’s
`
`line items exceed the number of total hours worked listed; and the wage statements list improper
`
`overtime rates because [AT&T] omitted items such as ‘COMMISSION (MOBILITY)’ when
`
`calculating its employee’s regular rate of pay.” (Id. at 7-8, ¶ 31.)
`
`According to Razo, due to the miscalculated wages, AT&T also failed “to pay for all wages due
`
`prior to termination.” (Doc. 41 at 8, ¶ 32.) In addition, Razo alleges that his “last day of work was in
`
`June 2018, but since such date four additional payments were made with the latest payment made as
`
`late as August 2018 well more than thirty (30) days after he ceased employment.” (Id., ¶ 35.) He
`
`reports these “payments consisted of the final payment of wages described as (1) Cash Awards, (2)
`
`Commission, (3) Taxable non-cash Awards, (4) Misc. Payment, and (5) recalculation of overtime
`
`differential pay.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 36.) Razo contends that AT&T “knew or should have known, that all
`
`other employees, including Plaintiff, were entitled to receive all wages at appropriate rates, all overtime
`
`at appropriate rates, and all commissions due at the time their employment ceased,” and knowingly and
`
`willfully failed to pay the wages due upon termination. (Id., ¶¶ 36-37.)
`
`On May 29, 2019, Razo provided notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and
`
`AT&T “of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including
`
`the facts and theories to support the alleged violations.” (Doc. 41 at 9, ¶ 42 (emphasis omitted).) He
`
`asserts the LWDA did not respond to the notice. (Id., ¶ 43.)
`
`On August 27, 2019, Razo initiated this action by filing a class complaint in Madera County
`
`Superior Court, Case No. MCV081925. (Doc. 1-4 at 5.) Razo filed an amended complaint in the state
`
`court on January 8, 2020. (Doc. 1-9.) AT&T initiated the matter before this Court by filing a notice
`
`of removal on January 31, 2020. (Doc. 1.) Razo further amended the pleadings on July 30, 2020, and
`
`October 15, 2021. (Docs. 9, 41.) The Third Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading.
`
`Razo identifies the following causes of action in the TAC: (1) failure to pay for all hours
`
`worked; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to pay wages due at termination in violation of
`
`Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203; (4) failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statement in violation of
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 226; (5) unlawful and unfair conduct in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
`
`17200, et seq.; and (6) civil penalties under California’s Private Attorney General Act. (Doc. 41 at 13-
`
`23.) Razo asserted the claims were brought on behalf of himself and classes including:
`
`1. “The Plaintiff Class”: All persons who have been, or currently are,
`employed by Defendant and who held, or hold, job positions which
`Defendant have classified as “non-exempt” personnel in the State of
`California. (The Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015,
`through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter).
`
`
`2. “The Terminated Sub Class”: All members of the Plaintiff Class
`whose employment ended during the Class Period (The Class Period is
`the period from August 27, 2015, through and including the date
`judgment is rendered in this matter).
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 10.) AT&T filed its answer on October 28, 2021. (Doc. 46.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`While this matter was pending, AT&T settled a separate class action addressing “the same
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`claims” as those raised by Razo, in Samuel Wallack, et al. v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, San
`
`Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2117915.1 (Doc. 72 at 4; see also Doc. 50 at 2.)
`
`The Wallack court denied Razo’s motion to intervene. (Doc. 49.) The settlement in Wallack received
`
`final approval on March 18, 2022, and an “Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc Granting Joint Motion for
`
`Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Judgment” was issued on April 19, 2022. The Wallack
`
`class was confirmed to include: “All persons who worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC in the
`
`State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time from August 1, 2015 through November
`
`2, 2021.” (Wallack, Case No. CIVSB2117915, Amended Order, p. 2.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`On March 8, 2022, Razo filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with AT&T
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`in this action. (Doc. 72.) In seeking approval, Razo acknowledged: “[o]nce the Wallack Court
`
`
`1 The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known
`within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
`cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir.
`1993). The official records of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, as contained in the court’s official website, are
`sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of documents on the website of
`a state court. See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (judicial notice may be taken of
`“undisputed matters of public record, including documents on file in federal or state courts”); O’Toole v. Northrop
`Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007) (“It is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of factual
`information found on the world wide web”). Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of the San Bernardino County
`Superior Court docket in Case No. CIVSB2117915, including the filing dates and documents publicly available. This
`docket is available at https://www.sb-court.org, and through the court’s online portal at https://cap.sb-court.org.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`grant[ed] final approval, the only remaining claims in this matter will be those Razo has asserted on
`
`behalf of those who worked for Defendant in a non-exempt role in California from November 2, 2021,
`
`onwards.” (Id. at 6.) Thus, Razo and AT&T agreed settle the claims of a class defined as: “All persons
`
`who worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-
`
`exempt, at any time from November 2, 2021, to the date the Court grants preliminary approval of this
`
`Settlement.” (Id. at 7; see also Doc. 72-4 at 4, Settlement ¶ 2.) On May 2, 2022, the Court determined
`
`Razo was not a member of the proposed settlement class, and the conditional class could not be
`
`certified. (Doc. 74.) Consequently, approval of the settlement was denied.
`
`Following the Court’s determination, the parties executed a “Revised Class Action and PAGA
`
`Action Settlement Agreement.” (Doc. 75-2.) On May 27, 2022, Razo filed a motion for preliminary
`
`approval of the parties’ revised settlement. (Doc. 75.) AT&T did not oppose or otherwise respond to
`
`12
`
`the motion.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
`
`Pursuant to the proposed “Class Action and PAGA Action Settlement Agreement (“the
`
`Settlement”), the parties agree to a gross settlement amount of $575,000.00 for a class including:
`
`All persons who either or both: (1) worked for AT&T Mobility Services
`LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time
`from November 2, 2021, to the date the Court grants preliminary approval
`of this Settlement; and/or (2) filed a timely Request for Exclusion from the
`class action settlement in the matter of Samuel Wallack, et. al. v. AT&T
`Mobility Services, LLC, Case Number CIVSB2117915, pending in the
`Superior Court for the State of California, County of California County of
`San Bernardino.
`
`
`
`(Doc. 75-2 at 4-5, ¶¶ 2, 6.) The settlement funds are non-reversionary, and AT&T shall also pay “the
`
`employer’s share of payroll taxes … separately from and in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount.”
`
`23
`
`(Id. at 8, ¶ 22.)
`
`24
`
`I.
`
`Payment Terms
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`The parties agree the settlement fund shall cover payments to class members, including
`
`enhanced compensation to Razo as the Class Representative. (Doc. 75-2 at 9, Settlement ¶¶ 22-24.) In
`
`addition, the Settlement provides for payments to Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs, to the
`
`Settlement Administrator, and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. (Id. at 5, ¶ 6.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments from the gross settlement amount:
`
`• The Class Representative will receive a service payment of
`$10,000.00;
`
` •
`
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
` Class counsel will receive $191,666.76 in attorneys’ fees, which
`equals 33 1/3 % of the gross settlement amount, and expenses up
`to $10,000.00;
`
` The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency shall
`receive $7,500.00 from the total PAGA payment of $10,000.00; and
`
` The Settlement Administrator will receive up to $30,000.00 for fees
`and expenses.
`
`
`
`(Id. at 5, 8-9, Settlement ¶¶ 6, 23-25.) After these payments, the remaining money (“Net Settlement
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Amount”) would be distributed as settlement shares to class members. (Id. at 5, Settlement ¶ 10.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Settlement shares will be calculated on a pro rata basis to Class Members. (Doc. 75-2 at 9,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Settlement ¶ 26.) Specifically, the Settlement provides: “Each Class Member who does not timely
`
`opt-out of the settlement will receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount based on the
`
`number of weeks that he or she worked in each position covered by the Settlement from November 2,
`
`2021 to the date of preliminary approval (the ‘Class Member Payment’).” (Id.) The Class Member
`
`Payment will include an individual’s shares of the PAGA Settlement Amount under Cal. Lab. Code §
`
`2699(i). (Id.; see also id. at 4-5, ¶ 9.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`The appointed Settlement Administrator will distribute payment by mailing checks to all Class
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Members and Aggrieved Employees. (Doc. 75-2 at 19- 20, Settlement ¶ 40; see also Doc. 75 at 15.)
`
`Checks must be cashed within 90 days of the mailing. (Doc. 75-2 at Settlement ¶ 41; see also Doc. 75
`
`at 15-16.) If any check remains uncashed after the 90-period, the money does not revert to AT&T.
`
`Rather, “the Settlement Administrator will distribute the unclaimed funds represented by the uncashed
`
`check to the California State Controller’s Office, Unclaimed Property Division in the name of the Class
`
`Member, where the Class Member or Aggrieved Employee can later claim their funds.” (Id.)
`
`25
`
`II.
`
`Releases
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Settlement provides that Razo and class members, other than those who elect not to
`
`participate in the Settlement, shall release AT&T from claims. (Doc. 75-2 at 10-11, ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`Specifically, the releases for all class members and “aggrieved employees” under PAGA provide:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`Class Members. Upon the Court’s final approval of this Settlement, the
`Class Members (other than those who timely and validly elected not to
`participate in the Settlement) fully release and discharge Defendant and
`the Released Parties of any and all known and unknown claims as alleged
`in, and that could have been alleged based on the facts of, the operative
`Third Amended Complaint. This includes, but is not limited to, statutory,
`constitutional, contractual or common law claims for wages, damages,
`unpaid costs or expenses, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive
`damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable
`relief, arising out of or based upon any provision of the California Labor
`Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and
`California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; including,
`without limitation, the following categories of allegations, to the fullest
`extent such claims are releasable by law: (a) all claims for failure to pay
`wages, including overtime premium pay and the minimum wage; (b) all
`claims for the failure to provide meal and/or rest periods in accordance
`with applicable law, including payments equivalent to one hour of the
`employee’s regular rate of pay for missed meal and/or rest period and
`alleged non-payment of wages for meal periods worked and not taken; (c)
`all claims for the alleged omission of any kind of remuneration when
`calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay; and (d) any and all claims
`for recordkeeping or pay stub violations, claims for timely payment of
`wages and associated penalties, and all other civil and statutory penalties.
`The Class Members understand and agree that this release includes a
`good-faith compromise of disputed wage claims.
`
`Aggrieved Employees. Upon the final approval by the Court of this
`Settlement, and in consideration of the PAGA Settlement Amount, Luis
`M. Salas Razo-on behalf of the State of California, the LWDA, and the
`Aggrieved Employees-releases and discharges Defendant and the
`Released Parties of any and all known and unknown claims as alleged in,
`and that could have been alleged based on the facts of, the operative
`complaint. This includes, but is not limited to, all claims for penalties,
`attorneys' fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief, recoverable
`through PAGA and arising out of or based upon any provision of the
`California Labor Code or California Industrial Welfare Commission
`Wage Orders; including, without limitation, the following categories of
`allegations, to the fullest extent such claims are releasable by law: (a) all
`claims for failure to pay wages, including overtime premium pay and the
`minimum wage; (b) all claims for the failure to provide meal and/or rest
`periods in accordance with applicable law, including payments equivalent
`to one hour of the employee’s regular rate of pay for missed meal and/or
`rest periods and alleged non-payment of wages for meal periods worked
`and not taken; (c) all claims for the alleged omission of any kind of
`remuneration when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay; and (d)
`any and all claims for recordkeeping or pay stub violations, claims for
`timely payment of wages and associated penalties, and all other civil and
`statutory penalties.
`
`
`
`(Id. at 10-13, Settlement ¶¶ 30-31.)
`
`The release for Razo encompasses more claims than those identified for Settlement Class
`
`Members, because he agreed to release any claims known and unknown against AT&T, not just those
`
`
`
`7
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`claims constrained to the facts alleged in this lawsuit. Specifically, Razo’s release provides:
`
`In consideration of the Service Payment to Razo, his Settlement payments,
`and the other terms and conditions of the Settlement, Luis M. Salas Razo
`hereby releases any and all of his known and unknown claims against
`Defendant and any of Defendant’s present and former parents, subsidiaries
`and affiliated companies or entities, and their respective officers, directors,
`employees, partners, shareholders and agents, and any other successors,
`assigns and legal representatives and its related persons and entities
`(“Released Parties”) and waives the protection of California Civil Code
`section 1542. Razo understands and agrees that this release includes a
`good-faith compromise of disputed wage claims.
`
`
`
`(Id. at 10, Settlement ¶ 29.) Thus, claims released by Razo—but not the Settlement Class—include any
`
`claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1981, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
`
`III. Objections and Opt-Out Procedure
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`The parties agreed class members would not be required to take any action to receive their
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`settlement shares. (See Doc. 75-2 at 10, Settlement ¶ 34.) However, any class member who wishes
`
`may file objections or elect not to participate in the Settlement. (Id.; see also id. at 39.) The proposed
`
`notice for class members explains the procedures to object to the terms request exclusion from the
`
`Settlement Class. (Id. at 34, 37.)
`
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS SETTLEMENT
`
`When parties settle the action prior to class certification, the Court has an obligation to “peruse
`
`the proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the
`
`settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). Preliminary approval of a class
`
`settlement is generally a two-step process. First, the Court must assess whether a class exists. Id.
`
`(citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)). Second, the Court must
`
`“determine whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Id.
`
`(citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 2998)). The decision to approve or
`
`reject a settlement is within the Court’s discretion. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.
`
`26
`
`I.
`
`Conditional Certification of a Settlement Class
`
`27
`
`
`
`Class certification is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
`
`28
`
`
`
`provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`of all.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Razo seeks to “certify a class conditionally for settlement purposes
`
`only” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. (Doc. 72 at 13.) Parties seeking class certification bear the
`
`burden of demonstrating the elements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, and “must affirmatively demonstrate
`
`… compliance with the Rule.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011); Doninger v.
`
`Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 563 F.2d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 1977). If an action meets the prerequisites
`
`of Rule 23(a), the Court must consider whether the class is maintainable under one or more of the
`
`three alternatives identified in Rule 23(b). Narouz v. Charter Communs., LLC, 591 F.3d 1261, 1266
`
`(9th Cir. 2010).
`
`A.
`
`Rule 23(a) Requirements
`
`The prerequisites of Rule 23(a) “effectively limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed
`
`by the named plaintiff’s claims.” General Telephone Co. of the Southwest. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,
`
`155-56 (1982). Certification of a class is proper if:
`
`(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
`(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
`defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
`of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
`protect the interests of the class.
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These prerequisites are generally referred to as numerosity, commonality,
`
`typicality, and adequacy of representation. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 156.
`
`1.
`
`Numerosity
`
`This prerequisite requires the Court to consider “specific facts of each case and imposes no
`
`absolute limitations.” General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980). Although there is
`
`not a specific threshold, joining more than one hundred plaintiffs is impracticable. See Immigrant
`
`Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cnt. Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 869 (9th Cir. 2002)
`
`(finding the numerosity requirement … “satisfied solely on the basis of the number of ascertained
`
`class members”); see also Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, 549 F.2d 1330, 1332 n.7 (9th
`
`Cir. 1977) (a proposed class with 110 members “clearly [included] a sufficient number to meet the
`
`numerosity requirements”).
`
`Razo reports “there are approximately 3,900 class members, all of whom were subject to
`
`AT&T’s allegedly commonly applied unlawful policies, among other derivative wage and hour
`
`
`
`9
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`claims.” (Doc. 75 at 18.) Therefore, joinder of all identified class members as plaintiffs is
`
`impracticable, and the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
`
`2.
`
`Commonality
`
`Rule 23(a) requires “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
`
`To satisfy the commonality requirement, the plaintiff must demonstrate common points of facts and
`
`law. See Wal-Mart Stores, 564 U.S. at 350. Thus, “commonality requires that the class members’
`
`claims depend upon a common contention such that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an
`
`issue that is central to the validity of each claim in one stroke,” and the “plaintiff must demonstrate the
`
`capacity of classwide proceedings to generate common answers to common questions of law or fact
`
`that are apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581,
`
`588 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citations omitted).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Razo asserts the commonality requirement is satisfied because “the class claims of Defendant’s
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`employees turn upon answers to overarching common questions regarding Defendant’s policies and
`
`procedures that are capable of class-wide resolution for settlement purposes.” (Doc. 75 at 18.)
`
`According to Razo, “[f]or settlement purposes” the common issues include:
`
`(1) whether Defendant’s timekeeping policies resulted in compensable
`off-the-clock work and subsequent failure to pay all regular and
`overtime hours worked; (2) whether Defendant’s omission of certain
`types of remuneration when calculating its employee’s regular rate of
`pay resulting in a failure to pay all wages owed; (3) whether Defendant
`provided its employees with all requires meal and rest periods; (4)
`whether Defendant paid its employees a penalty equivalent to one hour
`of their regular rate of compensation whenever that worker missed a
`meal or rest period; (5) whether Defendant failed to pay all owed wages
`timely; and (6) whether Defendant failed to provide employees with
`wage statements compliant with California law.
`
`(Id.) Because it appears resolution of the issues—including whether AT&T’s policies violated
`
`California wage and hour law—would apply to the claims of each of the Class Members, the Court
`
`finds the commonality requirement is satisfied.
`
`3.
`
`Typicality
`
`This requirement demands that the “claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
`
`of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). A claim or defense is not required to
`
`be identical, but rather “reasonably coextensive” with those of the absent class members. Hanlon, 150
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`F.3d at 1020. “The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether
`
`the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
`
`members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d
`
`497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted); see also Kayes v. Pac. Lumber
`
`Co., 51 F.3d 1449, 1463 (9th Cir. 1995) (the typicality requirement is satisfied when named plaintiffs
`
`have the same claims as other members of the class and would not be subject to unique defenses).
`
`Razo asserts the typicality requirement is satisfied because “[he] and the Class Members all
`
`worked for Defendant as non-exempt employees.” (Doc. 75 at 19.) In addition, Razo asserts that he
`
`and the Settlement Class Members “were all subject to the same allegedly non-compliant policies and
`
`practices….” (Id.) Because Razo was subjected to the same company policies and wage payment
`
`procedures as the Settlement Class Members, the Court finds the typicality requirement is satisfied for
`
`purposes of settlement. See Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508; Kayes, 51 F.3d at 1463.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Adequacy of Representation
`
`14
`
`
`
`Absentee class members must be adequately represented for judgment to be binding upon
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`them. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42-43 (1940). This prerequisite is satisfied if the representative
`
`party “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
`
`“[R]esolution of this issue requires that two questions be addressed: (a) do the named plaintiffs and
`
`their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (b) will the named plaintiffs
`
`and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec.
`
`Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020).
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Proposed class representative
`
`Razo seeks appointment as the Class Representative, and AT&T reports it “does not oppose the
`
`appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative for settlement purposes only.” (See Doc. 75 at 19-
`
`20.) Razo asserts “there is no evidence of antagonism between the Class Representative’s interests
`
`and those of the Class.” (Id.) According to Razo, he “has litigated this case in good faith” and “the
`
`interests of the Class Representative are aligned with those of the Class as they all share a common
`
`interest in challenging the legality of the alleged policies and procedures on which the claims are
`
`based.” (Id. at 20.) Neither party identified conflicts between Razo and the Settlement Class
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`members. (See id. at 19-20.) Thus, the Court finds Razo will fairly and adequately represent the
`
`interests of the Settlement Class.
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Proposed class counsel
`
`The law firm of Bradley/Grombacher LLP seeks appointment as counsel for the Settlement
`
`Class. (Doc. 75 at 19; see also Doc. 75-2 at 8, ¶ 23.) Counsel report they are “highly experienced and
`
`knowledgeable regarding complex wage and hour class actions like this one.” (Id. at 21, citing
`
`Grombacher Decl. ¶ 19 [Doc. 75-1 at 5].) According to counsel, they have “prosecuted numerous
`
`cases on behalf of employees for California Labor Code violations and thus are experienced and
`
`qualified to evaluate the class claims and to evaluate settlement versus trial on a fully informed basis,
`
`and to evaluate the viability of the defenses.” (Id. at 22, citing Grombacher Decl. ¶¶ 19-24 [Doc. 75-1
`
`at 5-6].) Ms. Grombacher reports she has worked in class action litigation for “more than a decade
`
`during which time [she] litigated hundreds of class actions.” (Doc. 75-1 at 5-6, ¶ 20.) She and her
`
`pa