Morgan v. Rohr, Inc., 3:20-cv-00574

Plaintiffs, former and current unionized, non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Rohr, Inc. in California, brought a class, collective, and representative action alleging various wage and hour violations under state and federal law.
There were two overlapping lawsuits: the Morgan Action (filed in 2019 as a class action) and the Harris Action (filed in 2020 under California's PAGA statute for civil penalties). The cases involved similar facts and claims.
The primary allegations included failure to provide meal/rest periods, overtime and minimum wage violations, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse necessary employment expenses.
After extensive litigation, discovery, mediation, failed settlement attempts, and partial class certification, the parties reached a $19.9 million settlement just prior to trial, resolving claims for approximately 1,755 class members.
The proposed settlement also included payments for PAGA claims, FLSA collective claims, class counsel fees, and class representative incentive awards, subject to court approval.
The court was tasked with evaluating the settlement for preliminary approval, including class certification for settlement purposes, adequacy, fairness, payment allocation, notice, and administration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Provisional class certification for settlement under Rule 23	Class satisfies numerosity, commonality, etc.	Disputed but did not contest for settlement	Court finds class certification likely proper
Fairness and adequacy of the $19.9M settlement	Amount is fair given risks and expected outcome	Settlement is reasonable given defenses	Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
Attorney's fees up to 33⅓% of the settlement	Fee is justified by work and outcomes		Reasonableness to be scrutinized at final approval
Propriety of class/collective notice and administration	Notice plan complies with Rule 23, reaches class		Notice plan approved as best practicable under law

Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong judicial policy favoring class action settlements)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (court must ensure fairness of class action settlements before certification)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality standard for class actions)
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance and superiority for class certification)
Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (arm’s-length settlement negotiations support fairness presumption)
In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (importance of evaluating attorneys’ fees in class settlements)
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) (notice requirements for absent class members)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (standard of reasonableness for notice in class actions)