Almanzar v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
2:20-cv-00699-KJN
E.D. Cal.Jan 3, 2024Background:
- Plaintiff Jorge Almanzar filed a class action and PAGA claim against Home Depot alleging various California Labor Code violations on behalf of non-exempt, hourly Night Team Merchandising Executive Associates in California from April 3, 2016 to November 1, 2021.
- Allegations included failure to provide compliant meal/rest periods, pay overtime, reimburse business expenses, provide timely wage payments and accurate wage statements, and related PAGA and Unfair Competition Law violations.
- Parties agreed to a $750,000 non-reversionary settlement, including PAGA payments, with a net settlement fund of $424,601.28 after deductions; average payout per class member was estimated at $174.97.
- Notice was provided to all 2,184 class members, with no objections or opt-outs; the court held a fairness hearing and reviewed the proposed allocations and provisions.
- The motion sought final class certification, approval of the class and PAGA settlements, attorney fees, costs/expenses, and a service award for the named plaintiff, and dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval of class action & PAGA settlement | Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate | Unopposed; agreed to settlement | Approved |
| Appropriateness of attorney's fees (1/3 of settlement) | One-third ($250,000) reasonable due to risks/results | No specific objection; settlement provided for up to 1/3 | Reduced to 25% benchmark ($187,500) |
| Adequacy of class representative and counsel | Plaintiff and counsel adequately represented interests | No objection; agreed to proposed representative and counsel | Found adequate |
| Fairness of distribution and incentive award ($15,000) | Representative devoted time, faced risks, reasonable | No objection; agreed to service award up to $15,000 | $15,000 service award granted; distribution method fair |
Key Cases Cited
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (establishes standards for class action settlement approval)
- Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (addresses arm’s-length nature and fairness in settlement evaluation)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (identifies potential collusion and fee award benchmarks)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (lays out factors for percentage of common fund fee awards)
- Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480 (Cal. 2016) (endorses percentage and lodestar crosscheck fee methods in CA wage/hour class actions)