Sevag Chalian v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc
2:16-cv-08979
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 16, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (former CVS retail pharmacy employees) brought wage-and-hour claims against CVS Pharmacy, CVS RX Services, and Garfield Beach CVS, alleging unpaid work time (based on LEARNet/SiteMinder activity vs. time punches) and other wage violations in California.
- Two settlement classes were defined for settlement purposes: (1) Pharmacist Settlement Class (hourly, non-exempt pharmacists in Regions 65 or 72, July 20, 2012–preliminary approval) and (2) Retail Pharmacy Settlement Class (other hourly, non-exempt retail pharmacy employees in CA, Aug 3, 2014–preliminary approval).
- Parties reached a global settlement (amended twice); gross common fund cited as $10,371,346.60. Settlement Administrator Simpluris to be paid $98,750; uncashed checks revert to California unclaimed wages fund.
- At the final-approval hearing, the court found notice and CAFA procedures satisfied, overruled three objections, and confirmed dozens of opt-outs. The court certified the classes for settlement purposes only and entered final approval, release, and injunction.
- The court approved attorneys’ fees of $2,592,836.65 and costs $32,385.77 (a 1.34 lodestar multiplier per cross-check), class representative service awards totaling $43,000, and LWDA PAGA payment of $56,250.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether classes should be certified for settlement (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Classes satisfy Rule 23 factors for settlement purposes; certification appropriate to effectuate global relief | Settlement-only certification is appropriate; parties agreed to certification for settlement | Court certified both Settlement Classes for settlement purposes only and retained jurisdiction |
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and non-collusive | Settlement provides substantial, tangible relief to class, negotiated at arm’s length after extensive litigation | Settlement avoids risk, delay, and additional cost of continued litigation; it is a fair compromise | Court found the Settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, non-collusive, and granted final approval; objections overruled |
| Whether notice to class satisfied Rule 23 and due process | Notice plan (individual mailed notice, CAFA notices, LWDA notice) was adequate and practicable | Same; defendants emphasized procedural compliance and practicability | Court found notice satisfied Rule 23 and was the best practicable under circumstances |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs requested are reasonable | Counsel sought fees from common fund; argued results, risk, and work justify fee and multiplier | Defendants did not oppose reasonableness given fund and cross-check; settlement counsel’s work supports request | Court awarded $2,592,836.65 in fees and $32,385.77 costs; found 1.34 lodestar multiplier reasonable under lodestar cross-check (citing Bluetooth) |
| Whether class representative incentive awards and PAGA allocation are appropriate | Requested service awards ($10k each for four, $3k for one) and LWDA PAGA payment ($56,250) are fair given participation and statutory allocation | Defendants supported payment as part of settlement allocation | Court approved $43,000 total service awards and $56,250 LWDA payment; found treatment equitable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (standard for approval of proposed class-action settlement)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement approval requires fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (lodestar cross-check and consideration of multiplier when awarding fees)