293 F. Supp. 3d 1117
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (seven named employees) sued Danell Custom Harvesting and individual Danell owners alleging state and federal wage-and-hour violations (overtime, meal/rest breaks, wage statements, expense reimbursement, waiting time penalties, PAGA) for work in California from Dec. 7, 2012 onward.
- Putative class comprised ~445 non-exempt mechanics, maintenance workers, operators, drivers, and weighers; most payroll/time records were produced and counsel interviewed ~150 class members.
- Parties mediated and reached a settlement providing $1,500,000 gross ($1,021,000 net to class after fees, costs, PAGA and administration), with allocation rules for wages/penalties and FLSA overtime share; Defendants deny liability.
- Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of settlement and for certification of a Rule 23 settlement class and an FLSA collective; magistrate judge conducted a fairness screen and provisionally certified for settlement purposes.
- Court approved notice and claims administration plan, provisionally appointed class counsel (John E. Hill and Enrique Martinez), provisionally appointed class representatives, and set a final fairness hearing and deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certification under Rule 23 for settlement | Common policies produced classwide wage/break/expense violations; numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied | Implicit: defendants deny liability and could challenge certification at merits/trial | Court provisionally certified the Rule 23 settlement class for settlement purposes only |
| Certification of FLSA collective | Putative collective are similarly situated under FLSA because claims arise from uniform policies; conditional certification appropriate | Implicit: defendants reserved right to decertify later but did not seek decertification now | Court conditionally certified the FLSA collective (first-step lenient standard) |
| Fairness/adequacy of settlement amount | Settlement provides substantial recovery (avg ~$2,300; range ~$6–$26,500); reached after discovery and mediation; non-collusive | Defendants contend settlement avoids protracted, costly litigation; deny wrongdoing | Court found settlement within range of possible approval and preliminarily adequate; approved notice and administration plan |
| Incentive awards, attorney fees, and PAGA allocation | Plaintiffs seek $7,500 each incentive; counsel seeks 25% of gross ($375,000) plus $31,000 costs; $10,000 allocated to PAGA with $7,500 to LWDA | Defendants silent in ruling; settlement terms negotiated | Court preliminarily approved fees as benchmark 25% but required lodestar cross-check at final approval; reduced incentive award preliminarily to $3,500 as reasonable; preliminarily approved PAGA allocation and noted LWDA did not object |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for class certification and settlement review)
- Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (heightened fairness scrutiny for pre-certification settlements)
- Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (court must evaluate settlement as a whole under Rule 23(e))
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (settlement-class certification requires undiluted attention to Rule 23 criteria)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (distinction between individual and generalized proof in predominance inquiry)
- Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (notice requirements for FLSA collective actions)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (FLSA settlement requires court or DOL supervision)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (benchmark percentage for common-fund attorney fees)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (typical attorney-fee percentage ranges for common-fund settlements)