Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)
`Stanm@TheMMLawFirm.com
`HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336)
`Hectorm@TheMMLawFirm.com
`DANIEL C. KELLER (Bar No. 332576)
`Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
`MALLISON & MARTINEZ
`1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
`Oakland, California 94612-3547
`Telephone: (510) 832-9999
`Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS SETTLEMENT
`
`Date: November 16, 2022
`Time: 10:00 am
`Judge: Hon. Dennis M. Cota
`Room: 304, 3rd Floor
`
`Complaint Filed: June 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`LAGARION BROWN, ROY JACKSON,
`YAPHETT SAUNDERS, ISAAC
`SAUNDERS, HAKEEM ALLAMBIE, and
`NICHLON GARRETT, individually and on
`behalf of those similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`TETRA TECH, INC., JESCO
`ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
`SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-20,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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 CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION ............................................................................................ 3
`B. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ............................................................................................... 4
`
`III. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS ......................................................................... 4
`
`A. THE MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION ................................................................... 4
`B. CLASS NOTICE ..................................................................................................................... 6
`C. TAX CONSEQUENCES OF SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS .............................................................. 6
`D. PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT SHARES ..................................................................................... 6
`E. PAGA PENALTY PAYMENT TO THE STATE .......................................................................... 7
`F. DISTRIBUTION OF UN-CASHED CHECKS ............................................................................... 7
`G. SCOPE OF CLASS RELEASE ................................................................................................... 7
`H. SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................... 8
`I.
`PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS, CLASS COUNSEL ATTORNEYS’ FEES PAYMENT, AND CLASS
`COUNSEL’S COSTS PAYMENT ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SHOULD BE GRANTED .......... 8
`
`A. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE ................................................ 10
`B. THE SETTLEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF INFORMED, NON-COLLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS ... 11
`C. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT HAS NO “OBVIOUS DEFICIENCIES” ..................................... 11
`D. THE SETTLEMENT FALLS WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE APPROVAL .................. 12
`i.
`Liability is Contested, and the Settlement Provides Class Members Monetary Relief . 12
`ii. The Class Member Release is Appropriate ................................................................... 14
`iii. The Proposed Class Notice Packet and the Notice Plan are Fair and Adequate ......... 15
`
`V. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS IS
`APPROPRIATE .......................................................................................................................... 16
`
`A. THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT IS MET .......................................................................... 16
`B. THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT IS MET ....................................................................... 16
`C. THE TYPICALITY REQUIREMENT IS MET ............................................................................ 16
`D. THE ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION REQUIREMENT IS MET ........................................... 17
`
`-i-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`E. CLASS CERTIFICATION IS PROPER UNDER RULE 23(B)(3) .................................................. 17
`
`VI. THIS CASE MEETS THE LENIENT STANDARD FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 216(B) ...................................................................... 18
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CASES
`
`Cellphone Termination Fee Cases,
` 186 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`Churchill Village, LLC v. General Electric,
` 361 F.3d 566 (2004) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
` 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8, 9
`Consumer Priv. Cases,
` 175 Cal.App.4th 545 (2009) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.,
` 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (1996) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`Fry v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
` 198 F.R.D. 461 (E.D. PA. 2000) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16, 17
`Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union,
` 489 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Cal. 1980) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
` 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 15, 16, 17
`Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC,
` 401 F.Supp.3d 1078 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019) ------------------------------------------------------ 18
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
` 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation,
` 484 F.Supp.2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`In re Traffic Exec. Ass’n,
` 627 F.2d 631 (2d Cir. 1980) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.,
` 168 Cal.App.4th 116 (2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10, 13
`Leuthold v. Destination Am.,
` 224 F.R.D. 462 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
`Litty v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
`
`-iii-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` 2015 WL4698475 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) --------------------------------------------------------- 18
`Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
` 384 F.Supp.3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019) -------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 11
`Mendoza v. U.S.,
` 623 F.2d 1338 (1980) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
`Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles,
` 186 Cal.App.4th 399 (2010) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`North County Contractor’s Assn., Inc. v. Touchstone Ins. Svcs.,
` 27 Cal. App.4th 1085 (1994) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 10
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
` 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc.,
` 2010 WL 2793650 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) --------------------------------------------------------- 14
`Troester v. Starbucks Corp.,
` 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
` 529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 203 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16, 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16, 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`TREATISES
`
`4 Newberg on Class Actions 4th (2002) § 11.25 ----------------------------------------------------- 9, 10
`4 Newberg on Class Actions 4th (2002) § 11.41 ------------------------------------------------------ 8, 9
`Manual for Complex Litigation, Third (Fed. Judicial Center 1995) (“Manual”) § 30.41) ------- 8, 9
`
`-iv-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−DAD−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem
`Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett (“Plaintiffs”) seek preliminary approval of this $600,000
`class/collective action settlement on behalf of a class of approximately 230 non-exempt
`environmental
`technicians (“Class Members”) employed by Jesco Environmental and
`Geotechnical Services, Inc. who worked on projects subcontracted by Tetra Tech, Inc.
`(collectively “Defendants”) between June 3, 2016 and May 1, 2022 (“the Class Period”).
`This is a wage and hour case alleging unpaid wage, meal and rest break, and expense
`reimbursement violations. Plaintiffs and Class Members performed post-disaster assessment and
`cleanup for Defendants, primarily in the aftermath of the catastrophic 2018 fire in Paradise,
`California. The basis for these claims is Defendants’ alleged failure to provide compliant meal
`periods. A review of timekeeping and payroll data by Plaintiffs’ expert in advance of mediation
`showed both untimely (i.e., within the first 5 hours) meal periods, and failure to provide second
`meal periods for shifts exceeding 10 hours.
`Following detailed expert review and analysis of the relevant timekeeping and payroll
`records, robust negotiations, and a mediation session before well-respected neutral Jeffrey
`Krivis, the parties have agreed to settle these claims in accordance with the terms of the
`Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement”) attached as Exhibit 1 to the accompanying
`declaration of Stan Mallison (“Mallison Decl.”). In addition, the risks and delays of further
`litigation make the Settlement all the more valuable. Because this Settlement provides fair,
`adequate, and reasonable compensation to the Class Members, it is well within the range of
`reasonableness for preliminary approval.
`The Gross Settlement Amount is $600,000 and covers the following: all Settlement
`Shares to be paid to Class Members who do not request exclusion from the settlement
`(“Participating Class Members”); reasonable fees of the Settlement Administrator (estimated not
`to exceed $5,000); Class Representative Payments of up to $10,000 to each of the Class
`Representatives; a payment for release of Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims of up
`to $50,000 (of which 75%, i.e., $37,500, shall be remitted to the Labor and Workforce
`-1-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Development Agency (“LWDA”)); and Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees of up to one-third (1/3)
`of the Gross Settlement Amount (i.e., $200,000), plus reasonable costs (not to exceed $18,000).
`After deduction of the foregoing sums from the Gross Settlement Amount, the entire Net
`Settlement Amount will be distributed to Participating Class Members, and no Settlement funds
`shall revert to Defendants. Any residual funds resulting from undeliverable or uncashed
`settlement checks will be disbursed to a suitable cy pres beneficiary subject to court approval.
`See Mallison Decl. ¶ 24.
`The Settlement represents informed, closely negotiated compromises on both sides.
`Mallison Decl. ¶ 39. The Settlement was reached after production of the relevant data necessary
`to evaluate this settlement, upon which Plaintiffs’ expert performed detailed analysis and
`damages calculations. Mallison Decl. ¶ 16. The parties thus approached negotiations with a clear
`view of the facts and potential value of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel balanced the terms of the
`Settlement, including both the Settlement amount and the benefits conferred to Class Members
`thereby, against the probable outcome of a wide range of issues at trial. Mallison Decl. ¶¶ 29-39.
`Counsel for Plaintiff carefully considered the risks of trial and other normal perils of litigation,
`including the merits of the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants, the difficulties of
`complex litigation, the lengthy process of establishing specific damages, new legal decisions
`affecting pivotal issues in the case, and other various possible risks and delays. Id. Indeed, no
`matter how good the facts and law, every trial retains inherent risk. Id. The Settlement, however,
`provides a certainty of recovery for Class Members. Additionally, further litigation or trial of the
`matter would substantially delay any compensation to Class Members and/or potentially imperil
`the financial stability of Defendants, and their ability to provide any remedies in this action. Id.
`As discussed below, the Settlement satisfies the criteria for preliminary settlement
`approval under California and federal law and falls well within the range of proper approval.
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs present this memorandum in support of the Motion for Preliminary
`Approval of the Settlement, conditionally certifying the settlement class, approving and directing
`distribution of the Class Notice to the Class, appointing the Class Representatives, Class
`Counsel, and Settlement Administrator, and setting a final approval schedule.
`-2-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Summary of the Litigation
`The operative First Amended Complaint alleges ten separate causes of action against
`Defendant for: 1) Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2) Failure to Pay Contractual
`Wages; 3) Failure to Pay California Minimum Wages; 4) Failure to Pay California
`Overtime/Doubletime Wages; 5) Failure to Provide Timely and Complete Meal Periods or Pay
`Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof; 6) Failure to Provide Timely and Complete Rest Periods or
`Pay Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof; 7) Failure to Reimburse Employees for Necessary
`Business Expenditures; 8) Failure to Pay Wages of Terminated or Resigned Employees; 9)
`Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement
`Provisions; 10) Violation of Unfair Competition Law; and 11) a claim for Labor Code violations
`under the Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”).
`Prior to commencing the action, Class Counsel conducted extensive due diligence,
`including interviewing Plaintiffs in detail regarding their working conditions and Defendants’
`wage payment practices, and factual research on Defendants based on publicly available
`information. Following these investigative efforts, Class Counsel determined that the case was
`suitable for class treatment and that Plaintiffs would be adequate class representatives. After
`commencing the action, the parties served and responded to written discovery, and exchanged
`document productions, which included timekeeping and payroll information for Plaintiffs. This
`discovery enabled the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Equipped with
`this knowledge, the parties set a mediation.
`Prior to the mediation session, Defendants produced timekeeping and payroll data for the
`putative class. Class Counsel engaged their expert to perform an extensive review and analysis of
`these records and assembled a comprehensive damages model to present to Defendants at
`mediation. In a nutshell, the investigation and discovery conducted herein was thorough and
`elaborate, putting the parties in an excellent position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
`the case, as well as its value. Mallison Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`
`-3-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations
`In connection with the aforementioned discovery efforts, the parties agreed to mediate the
`case and proceeded to do so before mediator Jeff Krivis in February of 2022. After reaching an
`agreement in principle, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding and, after several
`months of negotiations as to the final terms, ultimately reached the Settlement now presented to
`the Court. The data points, discovery, and issues presented during mediation and ensuing
`settlement negotiations allowed the parties to intelligently evaluate both the risks of further
`litigation and prospects of prevailing on the merits. The instant Settlement represents a fair and
`reasonable compromise of those competing factors. Mallison Decl. ¶¶ 19; 30-35.
`III.
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
`A.
`The Maximum Settlement Consideration
`Under the Settlement, Defendants are obligated to pay the non-reversionary Gross
`Settlement Amount of $600,000. Defendants shall pay the entire Gross Settlement Amount to a
`Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) created by the Settlement Administrator within ten (10)
`business days after the Effective Date. Settlement § III.A. The Settlement provides that all of the
`Gross Settlement Amount will be disbursed to Participating Class Members, and none of it will
`revert to Defendants. Settlement § III.A. The Settlement provides for: payment to the Class
`Representatives (subject to court approval) of up to $10,000 each as compensation for their role
`as Class Representatives (Settlement § III.B.1); payments to Class Counsel of up to one-third of
`the gross settlement for their reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well reasonable litigation expenses
`incurred in investigating and prosecuting the case, not to exceed $18,000 (Mallison Decl. ¶ 42);
`payment of up to $37,500 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (Settlement §
`III.B.3); and payment of the Settlement Administrator’s reasonable fees and expenses, estimated
`not to exceed $5,000. Settlement § III.B.4 The lowest responsible bidder, Phoenix Class Action
`Administration Solutions, has agreed to administer the settlement for $5,000. Mallison Decl. ¶
`22). All reasonable efforts will be undertaken by the Settlement Administrator and by Class
`Counsel to ensure that Class Members receive their settlement shares in this case.
`
`-4-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`After the other amounts are deducted from the Gross Settlement Amount, the “Net
`Settlement Amount” will be distributed to all Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis,
`calculated by dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of workweeks worked by
`each Class Member between June 3, 2016 and May 1, 2022 (the “Class Period”):
`
`After deducting the Class Representative Payments, Class Counsel Fees and
`Litigation Expenses payments, payments to the LWDA, and the Settlement
`Administrator’s fees and expenses, each Participating Class Member shall be
`eligible to receive a pro rata share of the balance of the Net Settlement Amount.
`As for each Class Period, the Net Settlement Amount shall be divided by the total
`number of workweeks worked by all Class Members during the applicable Class
`Period, and the resulting quotient thereof shall be the “Workweek Value.” Each
`Class Member’s Settlement Share will be determined by multiplying the
`Workweek Value by the number of workweeks worked by the Class Member.
`The pro rata distribution for a Participating Class Member who worked multiple
`Class Periods in California [. . .] is not exclusive and will be calculated as separate
`workweek distributions according to the claims applicable to the relevant Class
`Period to be added together.
`
`
`Settlement § III.D.1.(a)-(d).
`
`The estimated Net Settlement Amount is illustrated with the following table:
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gross Settlement Amount
`
`Attorneys’ Fees
`
`Litigation Costs
`
`Enhancement Awards
`Settlement
`Administration
`
`LWDA Payment
`
`Net Settlement Amount
`
`$600,000
`
` $200,000
`
` $18,000
`
` $60,000
`
` $5,000
`
` $37,500
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`-
`
` = $279,500
`
`
`With there being an estimated 230 Class Members, the average net recovery is estimated to be
`over $1,215 per Class Member – a fair, adequate, and reasonable recovery for the class when
`weighed against the risks, expense, and delay of class certification, further litigation, and trial.
`
`
`
`-5-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`B.
`Class Notice
`The proposed Class Notice, to be mailed to Class Members by the Settlement
`Administrator, explains the terms of the Settlement and how to opt out and/or object to the
`Settlement. See Mallison Decl., Exhibit 2, Class Notice. In addition, the Class Notice will
`include the Class Member’s estimated Settlement Share and the formula used for how the
`payment was calculated. Id. It will also advise members of the FLSA Collective that they will
`affirmatively opt-in to that action by cashing their settlement checks. Id.
`C.
`Tax Consequences of Settlement Payments
`All Settlement Shares will be allocated as follows: 40% to Settlement of wage claims,
`
`30% to Settlement of claims for interest, and 30% to penalties. The portion allocated to wages
`shall be subject to all applicable withholdings and reported on an IRS Form W-2 and the portion
`allocated to interest and penalties shall be reported on an IRS Form 1099 by the Settlement
`Administrator. After appropriate tax withholding from each Participating Class Member’s
`Settlement Share, the net payment to be received by each Participating Class Member as required
`by law via a W-2 Form, the Settlement Administrator shall immediately pay all such withheld
`funds to the appropriate state and federal taxing authorities. The Settlement Administrator shall
`provide each Participating Class Member with appropriate documentation setting forth the
`amount of any tax or other deductions in accordance with state and federal tax requirements.
`Settlement § III.D.2. Defendants will bear responsibility for the employer's share of payroll
`taxes associated with the settlement payments, which shall be in addition to the Maximum
`Settlement Consideration. Settlement § III.D.7.
`D.
`Payment of Settlement Shares
`After the other amounts are deducted from the Gross Settlement Amount, the Net
`Settlement Amount will be distributed as Settlement Shares to all Participating Class Members
`on a pro rata basis, calculated by dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of
`workweeks worked by each Class Member during the Class Period. Settlement § III.D.1.(a)-(d).
`Class Counsel has reviewed the proposed method of distribution and has determined that, on the
`whole, it serves the purpose of providing a relatively simple and readily determinable method for
`-6-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`distribution, while also allowing for a distribution that reasonably corresponds to the alleged
`damages and likely recoveries, which are based upon various theories of liability. Mallison Decl.
`¶ 26.
`
`E.
`PAGA Penalty Payment to the State
`As the class/collective claims for unpaid wages and meal/rest break violations formed the
`primary basis for liability, as opposed to the PAGA claim, and given the wide discretion the
`Court has to reduce an onerous penalty award (see Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2); Magadia v.
`Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 384 F.Supp.3d 1058, 1099-100 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (reducing PAGA
`penalty award on basis that awarding maximum amount “would be unjust and oppressive”)), the
`parties have agreed that a penalty payment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency of
`up to $37,500 (i.e., 75% of $50,000) is reasonable under the circumstances. Mallison Decl. ¶ 36.
`Class Counsel served the LWDA with the parties’ proposed Settlement on October 5, 2022. Id. ¶
`47, Exhibit 3.
`
`F.
`Distribution of Un-Cashed Checks
`The Settlement does not allow for reversion of any portion of the Net Settlement Amount
`to Defendant, and any Settlement Shares that remain uncashed after the 180 days from issuance
`will be distributed to a cy pres recipient, subject to court approval. Settlement § III.E.6. At final
`approval, Plaintiffs will propose Legal Aid at Work. See Mallison Decl. ¶ 24, Exhibit 4.
`G.
`Scope of Class Release
`The Participating Class Members’ Released Claims are wage/hour claims that were or
`
`could have been brought based on the allegations in the Lawsuit. The Parties intend that this
`Settlement Agreement, including the Released Claims set forth in this Agreement, shall be
`binding on all Class Members who do not timely request to be excluded from the Settlement.
`This Settlement Agreement shall constitute, and may be pleaded as, a complete and total defense
`to any Released Claims if raised in the future. Notably, the Class Release does not contain a
`Civil Code § 1542 waiver. Settlement § III.G.2.
`
`
`
`-7-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`H.
`Settlement Administration
`Class Counsel asks the Court to appoint Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions
`as the Settlement Administrator, which, as a condition of appointment, will agree to be bound by
`the Settlement with respect to the performance of its duties and its compensation. The Settlement
`Administrator’s duties are detailed in the Settlement. Settlement § III.B.4. Phoenix has agreed to
`administer this Settlement for a capped fee of $5,000. Mallison Decl. ¶ 22.
`I.
`Payment to Plaintiffs, Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees Payment, and
`Class Counsel’s Costs Payment
`As part of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval, Class Counsel will seek an award of up
`to $10,000 to each Plaintiff as compensation for their service as Class Representatives and the
`risks they faced and continue to face in having their name attached to this federal class action
`lawsuit. Settlement § III.B.1. Class Counsel will also seek an award of attorneys’ fees of one-
`third of the Gross Settlement Amount ($200,000), plus reasonable costs, which Plaintiff’s
`counsel estimates to be no more than $18,000. See Mallison Decl. ¶ 42; Settlement § III.B.2.
`IV.
`THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SHOULD BE
`GRANTED
`The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where
`substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation.
`See 4 Newberg on Class Actions 4th (2002) (“Newberg”), § 11.41 (and cases cited therein);
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992); Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco
`Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1976). A class action, however, may not be dismissed,
`compromised, or settled without the approval of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Judicial
`proceedings under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have led to defined
`procedures and specific criteria for settlement approval in class action settlements, described in
`the Manual for Complex Litigation, Third (Fed. Judicial Center 1995) (“Manual”) § 30.41). The
`Manual’s settlement approval procedure describes three distinct steps:
`
`1. Preliminary approval of the proposed settlement at an informal hearing;
`
`
`-8-
`MPA in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:20−CV−01133−JAM−DMC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 36-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`2. Dissemination of mailed and/or published notice of the settlement to all
`affected Class Members; and
`
`3. A “formal fairness hearing,” or final settlement approval hearing, at which
`Class Members may be heard regarding the settlement, and at which
`evidence and argument concerning
`the
`fairness, adequacy, and
`reasonableness of the settlement may be presented.
`
`Id. at § 30.41. The procedure, commonly used by federal courts and endorsed by the leading
`class action commentator, Professor Herbert Newberg, safeguards class members’ procedural
`due process rights and enables the Court to fulfill its role as the guardian of class interests. See
`Newberg § 11.22 et seq.
`
`The decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the trial court’s
`sound discretion; a court’s decision to approve a class action settlement may be reversed only
`upon a strong showing of “clear abuse of discretion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler C