297 F.R.D. 431
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Barbosa and Barrios) sued Cargill Meat Solutions alleging company-wide wage-and-hour violations at its Fresno plant (2009–2013), including unpaid donning/doffing/sanitizing time, missed meal/rest periods, and recordkeeping violations under California law and UCL.
- Parties negotiated a settlement after mediation and sought preliminary and then final approval of a $1,290,000 gross common fund; net to class ~$785,347 after fees, costs, service awards, and administration.
- The settlement class consisted of 1,837 current/former hourly production and support employees; notice (English/Spanish) was mailed and the claims rate was ~58% (1,053 valid, timely claims + 12 late accepted). Only one opt-out and no objections.
- Allocation: individual awards based on weeks worked; one-third of each award treated as wages (W-2), two-thirds as penalties/liquidated damages (1099). Unclaimed funds or unspent reserve to cy pres (United Way of Fresno County).
- Court conducted Rule 23 analysis for settlement-only certification, concluded Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) satisfied, found settlement negotiated at arm’s length with sufficient discovery and experienced counsel, and granted final approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a settlement-only class may be certified under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) | Class-wide factual/policy uniformity (same plant, employer policies, duties) supports numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy | Implicitly contested liability; argued policies complied with law (used in assessing risks) | Court certified the settlement class for settlement purposes only; Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) satisfied |
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) | Settlement provides concrete monetary relief, high claims rate, arm’s-length mediation, and avoids litigation risks/costs | Defendant maintained defenses and evidence supporting compliance, creating genuine litigation risk | Court approved settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate (weighed Churchill/Chrysler factors) |
| Whether requested attorneys’ fees (33% of gross fund) are reasonable | One-third appropriate given contingency risk, results, class reaction, and comparable local awards; lodestar cross-check supports a modest multiplier | (Defendant did not oppose; settlement considered in light of defense strength) | Court awarded $430,000 (33%); used percentage-of-fund approach and lodestar cross-check yielding a 1.06 multiplier, found reasonable |
| Whether incentive awards, costs, and administration fees are reasonable | $5,000 each to class reps, ~$32,723 costs, and $21,930 administration fee are justified by work, expenses, and administrative tasks | No opposition presented | Court approved incentive awards, costs, and claims administrator fee as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (common-fund fee principles and class settlement approval framework)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy standards)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requirement limits)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class conflicts and settlement-class considerations)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (class certification and settlement factors)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (percentage-of-fund approach and lodestar cross-check)
- In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002) (settlement approval deferential standard)