Alvarado v. Nederend, 1:08-cv-01099

Plaintiffs are approximately 150 current and former non-exempt dairy workers in California (Tulare/Kern County) alleging wage-and-hour violations by Rex and Sheri Nederend (Northstar Dairy, Woodwood Farms, Freeway Associates).
SAC asserts unpaid overtime/minimum wages, unpaid wages at termination, missing meal/rest breaks, and improper wage statements.
Parties entered a Joint Settlement seeking conditional class certification, preliminary approval, appointment of class representatives and counsel, notice, a settlement administrator, and a final approval hearing.
Settlement covers roughly 150 employees who worked from July 30, 2004 to September 7, 2010, with mediation by Raul Ramirez.
Gross Settlement Amount is $505,058.60, to be distributed as Settlement Shares after deductions for payroll withholdings, penalties, administrator fees (up to $15,000), and potential Class Representative and Class Counsel fees/expenses; unclaimed funds and uncashed checks are redistributed or donated.
Release bars Participating Class Members from most claims based on alleged improper compensation under federal, California, or local law; scope limited to those claims, not unrelated claims; notice and administration plan approved

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class should be conditionally certified under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for settlement.	Alvarado argues numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are met.	Nederend opposes only to the extent necessary but agrees the class should be certified for settlement.	Conditionally certified under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for settlement.
Whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.	Settlement provides meaningful recovery given risks and litigation costs.	Settlement is justified by risks, potential defenses, and delay of litigation.	Preliminary approval warranted; the settlement falls within the range of possible approval.
Whether the notice plan and administration are adequate.	Notice will be delivered in English and Spanish with direct mail, reminders, and aid from an administrator.	Not opposed to notice plan; administrator chosen to manage claims and distributions.	Notice plan and chosen administrator approved; best notice practicable.
Scope and effect of the release and potential for collusion.	Release tracks allegations and is limited to named claims; no collusion evident.	No objection to release scope beyond the claims in dispute.	Release deemed appropriate; no evidence of collusion.

Churchill Village, LLC v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (adequate class notice and settlement terms analysis for Rule 23(e))
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (test for determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in class actions)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (California meal/rest break obligations and class action context)