throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 77 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket