Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a wage-and-hour and PAGA action. The order conditionally certifies an expanded settlement class, approves proposed class notice procedures, appoints class representatives and counsel, grants leave to amend the complaint to remove the FLSA claim, and addresses the fairness of the proposed $2 million settlement. The settlement covers California non-exempt employees and includes class claims, PAGA claims, attorney fees, litigation costs, and representative payments.
Holdings
- The proposed settlement class satisfied the applicable Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for purposes of preliminary settlement approval, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.
- The proposed Rule 23 class settlement was preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
- The proposed $100,000 PAGA settlement, including a $75,000 payment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and a $25,000 payment to aggrieved employees, was fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate.
- The proposed notice plan was the best notice practicable and satisfied Rule 23 and due process, subject to specified revisions.
- Plaintiff was granted leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to file a third amended complaint removing the FLSA claim.
Questions Presented
- Whether the proposed settlement class should be provisionally certified for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
- Whether the proposed Rule 23 class settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to receive preliminary approval.
- Whether the proposed PAGA settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be preliminarily approved.
- Whether the proposed class notice and settlement-administration procedures satisfy Rule 23 and due process.
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a third amended complaint removing the FLSA claim.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (15)
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952, 960, 977 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Kim v. Reins Int'l Cal., Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73, 86-87 (2020)(followed)
- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 644-45 (2022)(followed)
- Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 852, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 39 F.4th 575, 583 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 959, 971-72 (N.D. Cal. 2019)(followed)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 616-17, 620, 623-24 (1997)(followed)
- Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942, 946, 948 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.