MIGUEL ROJAS-CIFUENTES v. ACX PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC., et al.
No. 2:14-cv-00697-CKD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 31, 2025
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes brings this putative class action against Defendants Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc. (formerly ACX Pacific Northwest Inc.) (“Al Dahra“); Pacific Leasing, LLC; John M. Gambos; and John E. Gambos alleging class violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA“), California Labor Code, and California‘s Unfair Competition Law. (ECF No. 49 at ¶¶ 28-82.) Plaintiff also brings an individual claim against Al Dahra, Pacific Leasing, and John E. Gombos for violation of
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual and Procedural Background
On March 13, 2014, plaintiff1 brought a putative class action on behalf of himself, the State of California pursuant to the
Plaintiff alleges that he was employed within the State of California as a non-exempt automobile mechanic at defendants’ facilities. (ECF No. 49 at ¶¶ 7, 8.) Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself individually; as a
Plaintiff‘s asserted class action claims include: (1) overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) failure to pay state minimum wages against Al Dahra and Pacific; (3) failure to pay state overtime wages against Al Dahra and Pacific; (4) failure to provide rest periods and meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof against Al Dahra and Pacific; (5) failure to pay timely wages after termination or resignation against Al Dahra and Pacific; (6) failure to provide itemized employee wage statement provisions against Al Dahra and Pacific; and (7) acts in violation of unfair competition law against Al Dahra and Pacific. Plaintiff brings a claim for acts in violation of the PAGA against all defendants; and individually brings a claim for a violation of the right to be free from violence or intimidation against AL Dahra, Pacific, and John E. Gombos. The proposed Class Members include “all non-exempt employees who are employed or have been employed by DEFENDANTS in California within four (4) years of the filing of the original Complaint in this action.” (ECF No. 49 at ¶ 18.) The Court already certified a sub-class defined as “all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked at the Wilmington Branch from March 14, 2010 to the present that worked at least one shift greater than 6 hours and had 30 minutes of pay automatically deducted for a meal period.” (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff seeks a conditional certification of a broader class for settlement purposes. (ECF No. 93 at 25.)
After engaging in extensive investigation and discovery, and a mediation session in August 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement. (ECF No. 93 at 4; ECF No. 93-1 at 4.) On April 2, 2024, plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. (ECF No. 93.) The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement (ECF No. 93) is now before the Court.
B. Terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement contains a release of all claims that are based on, arising out of, or relating to the facts or allegations set forth in the SAC against defendants by the proposed
In return for the release of claims from these individuals, the Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $2,000,000. (Settlement Agreement at §§ I.Q, III.B.)
The Settlement Agreement proposes deducting from the $2,000,000 gross settlement amount the following:
- Class representative payment not to exceed $55,375 allocated as follows:
- $10,000 in recognition of the plaintiff‘s efforts and work in prosecuting the action on behalf of Class Members and PAGA Group Members; and
- $45,375 in exchange for a general release of his claims (including his individual, non-class claim);
- Class counsel‘s attorney fees not to exceed $666,667 (33.3% of the gross amount);
- Class counsel‘s litigation costs not to exceed $50,000;
Settlement Administrator costs to be determined and provided to the Court and counsel for all parties no fewer than ten calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing; and - A PAGA payment of $75,000 to be paid to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (“LWDA“) out of an overall PAGA award of $100,000.3
(Settlement Agreement at § III.C.) The above deductions, if fully approved, would yield a Net Settlement Amount of $1,141,958.4 (See ECF No. 92 at 6.)
As proposed, the Net Settlement Fund would be distributed across all class members on a pro rata basis. The individual class payments are based on the number of class workweeks attributed to a class member during the class period. (Settlement Agreement at § III.E.) A class workweek means the weeks a class member performed work during the class period excluding all workweeks where a class member took forty hours of vacation or was on a leave of absence. (Id. at § I.G.) Individual PAGA payments will be based on the number of PAGA workweeks attributed to a PAGA group member during the PAGA period. (Id. at § III.E.) A PAGA workweek means the weeks a PAGA group member worked as a GAPA group member during the PAGA period excluding all workweeks where a PAGA Group Member took forty hours of vacation or was on a leave of absence. (Id. at § I.AA.) A Settlement Administrator will determine the amounts of all individual class payments and individual PAGA payments. (Id. at § III.E.) For the individual class, the net settlement amount will be divided based on a point scale. Class workweeks worked by Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class member will be given two settlement points and class workweeks worked by all other class members will be given one settlement point. (Id. at § III.E.1.) The total number of settlement points will be added together and the net settlement amount will be divided by the total points to reach a dollar value per point. (Id.) The point value will be multiplied by each class member‘s number of settlement points to determine
The Settlement Agreement requires the Settlement Administrator to mail out notices of the class action settlement. (Settlement Agreement at § III.F.2.a, b, g.) Within fifteen calendar days of preliminary approval of the settlement, Al Dahra will provide the Settlement Administrator with the class list and data. (Id. at § III.F.2.e.) The Settlement Administrator will mail the notice packet to the class members within ten calendar days after receiving this list. (Id. at § III.F.2.g.) Class members will be allowed thirty days from the mailing of the proposed Notice Packet to challenge dates of employment, workweeks, submit written objections or opt-out of the settlement class. (Id. at §§ I.HH, III.F.2.h.; ECF No. 93-3.) Class members who wish to opt out may do so by written request and will not be bound by the class release provisions; class members who remain in would ultimately receive their portion of the net settlement award by check. (Settlement Agreement at § III.F.2.c; ECF No. 93-3 at 6; see Settlement Agreement at § III.F.5.) The Settlement Agreement provides PAGA class members receive automatic membership and there is no opt-out or exclusion option. (Settlement Agreement at § III.2.c.vi; ECF No. 93-3 at 5-6.) The Class Notice also conveys to PAGA class members that they may not opt out and releases “any and all claims for civil penalties alleged under
II. DISCUSSION
In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an order (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement; (2) granting conditional certification of the settlement class;
Legal Standards - Rule 23 Class Settlements and PAGA Settlements
When parties seek approval of a class settlement before class certification, courts must analyze “both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003); see
Although this action largely consists of class claims, it also includes a claim for penalties under PAGA. PAGA claims are distinct from class claims. See Kim v. Reins Int‘l Cal., Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73, 86-87 (2020) (“[A] representative action under PAGA is not a class action[,]” but rather one “on behalf of the government.” (quotations omitted)). This is because “[p]laintiffs may bring a PAGA claim only as the state‘s designated proxy, suing on behalf of all affected employees.” Id. at 87; see Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 644-45 (2022) (explaining how California law characterizes PAGA as creating a “type of qui tam action” with the representative private plaintiff acting in place of the government (quoting Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 382 (2014)). Because a PAGA claim is not “a collection of individual claims for relief” like a class action, Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing Kim‘s holding), PAGA claims “need not satisfy Rule 23 class certification requirements,” Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 39 F.4th 575, 583
Analysis
A. Provisional Class Certification under Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (g)
To reiterate, Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a class defined as “all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Al Dahra in the State of California at any time during the period from March 14, 2010, through October 15, 2023.” (Settlement Agreement at § I.D.) The members of the proposed class would be required to release all of the following claims including for: rest periods; meal periods, including rounding violations and automatic deductions; pay for all hours work, including but not limited to alleged off-the-clock work and alleged rounding violations (including for alleged unpaid donning/doffing and walking time); calculation of the regular rate and/or overtime/double time pay; improper deductions from wages; improper deductions of wages; forfeiture of wages; timeliness of wages; payment of wages at separation of employment; and others. (Settlement Agreement at § I.EE.)
1. Prior Certification of Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class
In a May 18, 2018, the Court issued an order granting certification for the Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class and denying certification for two other sub-classes, the Stockton Second Meal Period & Third Rest Break Class and the Wilmington Meal Period Class. (See ECF No. 73.)
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the certified class would be expanded. (See ECF No. 93 at 25 (plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a broader class).) It appears that this broader class would include the subclasses and claims that previously were determined to be unsuitable for certification. Courts have the discretion to “amend or alter the class definition at any time before a decision on the merits” and “can expand the scope of a settlement class.” Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 314 F.R.D. 312, 318 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (citation omitted). However, “the propriety of certification cannot be assumed.” Id. Plaintiff has not provided any argument about why it is appropriate to conditionally certify this expanded class.
However, formal class certification is not a prerequisite for preliminary approval and courts often take a more cursory approach to preliminary certification analysis because it is non-final. Newberg on Class Actions § 13:18 (6th ed.) (citing Dearaujo v. Regis Corp., 2016 WL 3549473, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (“[D]espite the Supreme Court‘s cautions in Amchem . . . , a cursory approach appears the norm.“); In re: Amtrak Train Derailment in Philadelphia,
As discussed below, because the
2. Numerosity
For class certification, the class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”
3. Commonality
Second, there must be “questions of law or fact common to the class” to be certified.
Here, Plaintiff contends that common questions of fact and law exist based on the following: “Plaintiff‘s claims involve common questions of both law and fact regarding Defendants’ alleged failure to provide timely, compliant meal periods of the proper duration.” (ECF No. 93 at 25; see ECF No. 93-1 at ¶ 36.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that these violations plainly appear on the face of defendants’ records. (ECF No. 93 at 25; ECF No. 93-1 at ¶ 28.)
Because the above questions would form the basis of each class member‘s claims, plaintiff satisfies the commonality requirement. See Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding commonality satisfied when class action claims raised common question of whether the employer had practices or unofficial policies that violated California Labor Code provisions). “Even if individual members of the class will be entitled to different amounts of damages because, for instance, they were denied fewer meal and rest breaks than other employees, . . . ‘the presence of individual damages cannot, by itself, defeat class certification.‘” Mejia v. Walgreen Co., 2020 WL 6887749, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2020) (quoting Leyva, 716 F.3d at 513, and finding commonality satisfied where the alleged labor code violations were based on the defendant‘s policies).
4. Typicality
The third certification requirement, typicality, is satisfied when “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”
Here, Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee at Defendants’ facilities during the class period. (ECF No. 93-6 at 4.) The class is defined as “all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Al Dahra in the State of California at any time during the [class period].” (Settlement Agreement at § I.D.) Plaintiff‘s claims are typical of the class because Plaintiff‘s claims “are essentially identical to all other non-exempt workers employed by Defendants, and their claims are typical of such workers with the same common issues.” (ECF No. 93 at 26.) Plaintiff‘s claims are reasonably co-extensive of the other class members, so the typicality requirement is satisfied. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.
5. Adequacy of Representation
To satisfy
a. Conflicts of Interest
Here, Plaintiff and the class share common injuries and generally possess the same interests. It does not appear that there is a conflict of interest between Plaintiff and the proposed class. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff possesses an individual claim, which appears to be settled in the same settlement agreement as the class settlement. (See Settlement Agreement at § III.C.) Plaintiff is to receive $10,000 in recognition of Plaintiff‘s efforts and work in prosecuting the action on behalf of the class and the PAGA class. Plaintiff is also to receive $45,375 for general release of his claim, including his individual, non-class claim. (Id.) This may
The nature of Plaintiff‘s settlement of his individual claims was unclear from Plaintiff‘s motion. The Court held a hearing on this issue on March 28, 2025, and Plaintiff subsequently submitted a declaration. (ECF No. 102.) In the declaration, Plaintiff explains that his individual claim results from his attempt to speak with management on behalf of himself and his coworkers about a lack of rest periods and meal breaks. (Id.) It appears that Plaintiff‘s claim for violation of right to be free from violence or intimidation is distinct from other class members because he was the one that spoke to management and was told not to pursue the complaint. (ECF No. 102 at
Plaintiff is also receiving a $10,000 award for his efforts and work in prosecuting the action on behalf of class members and PAGA group members. This combined with his payment for release of his individual claims is a $55,375 “incentive award.” See Chen, 2020 WL 13587954, at *6. These are “fairly typical in class action cases,” and are meant to “compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ‘g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts recognize a potential conflict of interest between a named plaintiff and the class “when, as here, there is a large difference between the enhancement award and individual class member recovery.” Mansfield v. Sw. Airlines Co., 2015 WL 13651284, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015). The existence of a common fund, as here, heightens this concern, because the enhancement award reduces the funds available for payments to class members. See Campbell v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2015 WL 12744268, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (“Given that the service enhancement awards would reduce the amount of the class settlement funds available for the Net Payments to
The Settlement Agreement proposes an incentive award up to $55,375 for the sole named plaintiff in this action, Mr. Rojas-Cifuentes, which amounts to 2.77% of the gross settlement amount of $2,000,000 and almost forty times the amount that other class members are expected to receive ($1,400). (Settlement Agreement at § III.C.1.) Percentagewise, such a class representative award is higher than has been granted in other cases. See, e.g., Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc., 2010 WL 2486346, at *10 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2010) (collecting cases and concluding that incentive award over 1% of settlement fund, without justification, was excessive); see also Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356, 365 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (noting incentive awards equaling even 1% of larger settlements are generally found to be “unusually high“); Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 267 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing cases demonstrating that incentive awards typically range from $2,000 to $10,000). Given that the parties have not submitted exact figures of what each class member might obtain (instead relying on a formula for the claims administrator to use in determining each class member‘s award), it is difficult to determine how much larger of an award this would be in comparison to what each class member might receive. This amount will be considered at the final settlement step. For purposes of provisional certification of the class, the Court does not find the proposed incentive award so disproportionate that it necessarily creates a conflict of interest or renders Plaintiff an inadequate representative.
////
As to the second aspect of the adequacy inquiry, plaintiff‘s attorney at Mallison & Martinez has extensive experience in litigating complex class actions, including settling wage and hour class actions in California. (ECF No. 93 at 26; ECF No. 93-1 at ¶¶ 4-6.) This experience suggests that counsel can effectively advocate for the proposed class. In the absence of any further evidence of conflicts, the Court finds Plaintiff‘s counsel likely to continue vigorously prosecuting this lawsuit on behalf of the class.
6. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements
Plaintiff invokes
Here, common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting individual members because plaintiff alleges that he and all class members were subject to the same policies and practices regarding meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime wages, provision of itemized wage statements, and timely payment of wages during employment. When a class action challenges a defendant‘s uniform policies, courts generally find the predominance requirement satisfied. See Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2016); Palacios v. Penny Newman Grain, Inc., 2015 WL 4078135, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2015) (finding predominance where defendants uniformly failed to properly calculate wages and overtime, provide reimbursements, account for meal and rest periods, and noting there will be individual issues apart from calculating individual damages).
7. Appointment of Class Representative & Class Counsel
In sum, because the Court finds
“[A] court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel.”
Plaintiff moves for an appointment of Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel. Plaintiff‘s
B. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement
Settlement of a class action must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
In reviewing whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and accurate,
For the following reasons, the Settlement Agreement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate, and so is preliminarily approved under
1. Adequacy of Representation
The first factor, whether “the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class,”
2. Arm‘s Length Negotiation
The second factor requires the court to consider whether the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm‘s length.”
3. Adequacy of Relief Provided to the Class
The adequacy of relief determination requires consideration of four sub-factors: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney‘s fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under
The amount offered in the proposed settlement agreement is generally the most important consideration of any class settlement. See Bayat v. Bank of the West, 2015 WL 1744342, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (citing In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2013)).
In determining whether the amount offered is fair and reasonable, courts compare the proposed settlement to the best possible outcome for the class. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 964.
Under the Settlement Agreement, class members will not have to submit claims to receive payment; instead, they will be identified through defendant‘s employment records; the Settlement Administrator will search for class members’ most recent address through searches; and class members will receive the settlement payment by mail unless they opt out of the settlement. (Settlement Agreement at §§ I.C., III.F.2.e & f; see id. § III.F.3.) Each class member‘s share will be calculated based on how many workweeks they worked during the class period, which can be readily determined by defendant‘s employment records, and which will be stated on the Class Notice; class members will also have an opportunity to challenge errors relating to the number of workweeks calculated on the Notice. (Id. at § III.E.1, 2; ECF No. 93-3 at 3-4.) This method of distributing relief is “simple and effective.” Loreto v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 2021 WL 1839989, at *10 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2021).
The Settlement Agreement also provides that class counsel will request attorney‘s fees up to 33.3% percent of the gross settlement amount, at $666,667 and litigation expenses not to
Given that class counsel eventually will move separately for attorney‘s fees and costs under
In the forthcoming
Lastly, Plaintiff identifies no other agreements made in connection with the proposed settlement. See
////
The fourth factor addresses whether the proposed settlement agreement “treats class members equitably relative to each other.” See
The Settlement Agreement provides that class workweeks worked by the Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class members will be given two settlement points and the class workweeks worked by all other class members will be given one settlement point. (Settlement Agreement at § III.E.1.) Each class member will receive at least the amount equivalent to one settlement point and each Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class Member will receive at minimum the amount equivalent to two settlement points. (Id.) The parties have not explained why the Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class will receive more points than the class members. Upon final approval, the parties are directed to include additional information about why workweeks worked by the Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class members are given two settlement points and the workweek worked by the class member are given one settlement point. (Settlement Agreement at § III.E.1.) As to equitable treatment between the class representative and the class members, the Court incorporates its discussion regarding the incentive award. Given that the Court retains discretion to award a lower amount depending on the briefing provided at the final approval stage, this is not a source of impermissible inequity.
C. Settlement of PAGA Penalties Claim
Plaintiff‘s eighth cause of action in his SAC asserts a claim for PAGA penalties, on behalf of Plaintiff and all aggrieved employees, for civil penalties associated with the Labor Code violations asserted in the class claims. (ECF No. 49 at ¶¶ 83-94.) As discussed at the outset, PAGA claims and their settlement are fundamentally distinct from
Under PAGA‘s remedial scheme, civil penalties recovered are distributed between “the aggrieved employees” (25%) and the LWDA (75%). Former
Although the court does not evaluate the settlement of PAGA claims under the Rule 23 criteria, it must still inquire into the fairness of the PAGA settlement. “[I]n reviewing a settlement that includes both a Rule 23 class and a PAGA claim, the court must closely examine both aspects of the settlement.” O‘Connor, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 1133 (emphasis omitted). Based on the best guidance at hand—from the LWDA‘s input in O‘Connor, in the absence of a definitive governing standard—district courts typically apply “a Rule 23-like standard” asking whether the settlement of the PAGA claims is “fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Haralson, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 971-72; see Mondrian v. Trius Trucking, Inc., 2022 WL 2306963, at *7 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022) (noting lack of binding standard for approving PAGA settlements and adopting
“While a proposed settlement must be viewed as a whole, the [c]ourt must evaluate the adequacy of compensation to the class as well as the adequacy of the settlement in view of the purposes and policies of PAGA. In doing so, the court may apply a sliding scale.” O‘Connor, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 1134 (citation and emphasis omitted). “For example, if the settlement for the
The Settlement Agreement provides for $100,000 in PAGA penalties out of the gross settlement amount of $2,000,000. (Settlement Agreement at § III.C.4.) Class counsel anticipated that any award under the PAGA would likely be reduced, the Court could exercise its discretion and decline to “stack” penalties for multiple violations within a single pay period, or some of the unpaid time underlying plaintiff‘s FLSA claims may have been considered de minimis. (ECF No. 93-1 at ¶ 32; ECF No. 93 at 23.) While the Court would not describe the potential individual payments to class members as “robust,” the Court is persuaded that PAGA‘s interests are satisfied given the difficulties Plaintiff would have in litigating this case through trial and given the parties’ negotiation efforts after significant discovery and investigation. O‘Connor, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 1134.
Considering the other factors from
For these reasons, the Court finds the settlement of the PAGA Penalties claim to be fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate.” See Haralson, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 972.
D. Settlement Administrator; Notice to Class/PAGA Members; Fairness Hearing
1. Settlement Administrator
To ultimately approve a class action settlement, a district court must ensure class members were notified of the proceedings, had the opportunity to opt out or (for those who remain in the settlement) object to any of the settlement‘s terms, and were provided the chance to appear at fairness hearing.
2. Notice to Class Members
For proposed settlements under Rule 23, “the court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.”
[D]irect to class members the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort [by] United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means, [concerning] the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the class claims, issues, or defenses; that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and the binding effect of a class judgment on members . . . .
Here, the Class Notice generally describes the terms of the settlement and provides a link to a forthcoming website that will contain documents from the Court‘s docket. The form allots space to notify each class member of how many workweeks they worked and what their estimated total award will be—properly distinguishing between the Rule 23 and PAGA workweeks. The Class Notice also provides the class members with the amounts they will be awarded for each segment of the settlement, properly distinguishing between the Rule 23 award and the PAGA award. (ECF No. 93-3.) However, as it is currently written, the Class Notice does not adequately inform the class members that the Class Representative is requesting additional funds, and should be modified accordingly. Further, the Class Notice has a sentence that reads: The Class Notice must also finish the sentence that currently reads: “The Class Representative also alleges violations of the.” (Id.) The parties are ordered to include this information in the Class Notice before sending it to class members. The Class Notice also states that the final approval hearing will be before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. The parties shall update this information before mailing the Class Notice as the final approval hearing will be before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.
The Settlement Agreement requires the Settlement Administrator to mail out notices of
With that addition, the Court approves of the Class Notice and schedule noted therein. According, the notice meets the requirements of
3. Further Scheduling and the Fairness Hearing
“Courts have long recognized that settlement class actions present unique due process concerns for absent class members.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 946 (citation omitted). To protect the rights of absent class members,
For clarity, the Court now reiterates the remaining deadlines as per in the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice, and the parties’ proposed order. (See Settlement Agreement; ECF No. 93-3; ECF No. 93-7.)
| Deadline for Defendant to provide the Settlement Administrator a list of the names, most recent known mailing address and telephone number, Social Security Number and respective number of workweeks that each Class Member worked during the Settlement Class Period in a readable Microsoft Office Excel Spreadsheet (“Class List and Data“) | April 14, 2025 |
| Deadline for mailing of Class Notices by Settlement Administrator. | 10 days after Settlement Administrator‘s receipt of Class List and Data |
| Last day for Class Members to submit a written request for exclusion, submit objections, or dispute the workweeks calculated. | Within 30 days after the mailing (or remailing) of the Class Notice |
| Last day for Class Counsel to file with the Court and serve declaration by Settlement Administrator specifying the due diligence undertaken with regard to the mailing of the Notice | July 23, 2025 |
| Last day for Plaintiff to request final approval of the settlement agreement, attorneys’ fees, and incentive award. | July 23, 2025 |
| Fairness Hearing Date (Courtroom 24). | September 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. |
ORDER
For the above reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
- Plaintiff‘s unopposed motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of settlement (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED;
- As defined above and for purposes of settlement only, the
Rule 23 class is provisionally certified, Plaintiff Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes is appointed class representative, and Mallison & Martinez is appointed class counsel; The Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 98) is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; - CPT Group is appointed Settlement Administrator for this class action settlement;
- The parties’ plan for notice to the class is the best notice practicable and satisfies the due process concerns of
Rule 23 , but the parties shall revise the Class Notice before sending it to class members as follows:- The Class Notice shall inform the class members that the Class Representative is requesting a reasonable service payment;
- The sentence that currently reads: “The Class Representative also alleges violations of the” (ECF No. 93-3) shall be modified to reflect the Class Representative‘s allegations;
- The Class Notice shall reflect that the fairness hearing will be conducted by the undersigned.
- Plaintiff‘s request to file a third amended complaint (Settlement Agreement at § III.K; ECF No. 93 at 27 n.4; see ECF No. 93-6) is GRANTED; and
- The parties shall follow the deadlines set herein as delineated by the Settlement Agreement. A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 24 of the Matsui Courthouse, 501 I. St., Sacramento, CA, 95814.
Dated: March 31, 2025
5, roja.0697.14
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE