Scott v. Blackstone Consulting, Inc.
3:21-cv-01470
S.D. Cal.Jan 24, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, former non-exempt security officers at Kaiser Permanente sites in California, brought a wage and hour class action against Blackstone Consulting, Inc. (BCI), alleging a range of California Labor Code violations.
- The putative class consisted of all non-exempt employees who worked for BCI at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California between May 21, 2017, and April 30, 2023.
- During mediation, five related actions (state and federal) were globally settled, and the operative complaint was amended to include additional representative plaintiffs.
- Settlement terms included a $1,000,000 fund, with deductions for attorney fees (33%), costs, administration, PAGA penalties, and class representative service awards.
- Notices were sent to class members, with only 7 opting out and no objections submitted; 1,312 class members remained, and distributions were based on workweeks.
- The District Court held a final fairness hearing and ultimately approved the settlement—subject to a reduction in class representative service awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval of class settlement | Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, negotiated at arm’s length, and benefits the class. | No opposition | Settlement approved under FRCP 23(e), with minor alteration. |
| Attorney’s fees (request for 33%) | Fees reasonable based on work and comparable to or below lodestar calculation. | No opposition | 33% ($333,333.33) is reasonable; awarded as requested. |
| Class representative service awards | $10,000 each for five representatives is warranted for their efforts. | No opposition | Service awards reduced to $5,000 each as more proportionate. |
| PAGA penalties adequacy | $50,000 (5% of settlement) is reasonable for PAGA penalties. | No opposition | Amount reasonable; PAGA distribution approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (articulates the court’s role in the approval of class action settlements)
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses factors for evaluating class settlement fairness and attorney fees)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (addresses benchmark and lodestar cross-checks for common fund attorney fees)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (details district court oversight of class action settlements and due process concerns)