United Steel Paper & Forestry Rubber Manufacturing Energy Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO CLC et al v. ConocoPhillips Company

Filing 424

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Randy Renick (California Bar No. 179652)
(Email: rrr@ hadsellstormer.com)
Anne Richardson (California Bar No. 151541)
(Email: [e-mail])
Cornelia Dai (California Bar No. 207435)
(Email: cdai@ hadsellstormer.com)
HADSELL STORMER
RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, California 91103-3645
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]

E-FILED 05/06/13
JS-6

Attorneys For Plaintiffs Raudel Covarrubias,
David Simmons, And Stephen S. Swader
Jay Smith (California Bar No. 166105)
(Email: [e-mail])
Joshua F. Young (California Bar No. 232995)
(Email: [e-mail])
GILBERT & SACKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys For Plaintiff USW
[Additional Counsel Listed On Next Page]

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

UNITED STEEL, PAPER &
FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL & SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC, on behalf of
its members employed by defendants,
and RAUDEL COVARRUBIAS,
DAVID SIMMONS AND STEPHEN
S. SWADER, SR., individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. CV08-2068 PSG (FFMx)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF JOINT
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
AND RELEASE
DATE: May 6, 2013
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Courtroom 880
Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6

Richard P. Rouco (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
(Email: [e-mail])
QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES &
ROUCO LLP
2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff USW

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The Court, having considered whether to order final approval of the
settlement of the above-captioned action pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of
Settlement (“Settlement”), having read and considered all of the papers and
argument of the parties and their counsel, having granted preliminary approval on
December 12, 2102, having directed that notice be given to all Class Members of
preliminary approval of the Settlement and the final approval hearing and the right
to be excluded from the Settlement, and having received no objections and good
cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

Terms used in this Judgment and Order of Final Approval have the

meanings assigned to them in the Settlement.
2.

This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Action by

Plaintiffs Raudel Covarrubias, David Simmons, and Stephen S. Swader, Sr., and
Plaintiff United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

15

Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (“USW”)

16

(“Plaintiffs”), and over Class Members and Defendants.

17
18
19

3.

The Court hereby makes final the conditional class certification the

Court granted on December 12, 2012, and thus makes final for purposes of the
Settlement only, the certification of the two subclasses:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

All former, current, and future non-exempt hourly employees of Conoco
who, at any time since February 15, 2004, worked as an operator on a shift
schedule at a Conoco petroleum refinery located in Los Angeles, Santa
Maria, or Rodeo California; and
All former and current non-exempt hourly employees of Conoco who, at any
time from February 15, 2004 through June 8, 2009, worked in the laboratory
on a shift schedule at a Conoco petroleum refinery located in Los Angeles,
Santa Maria, or Rodeo, California.

27
28
3
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4.

This certification for settlement purposes shall not be construed to be

an admission by the Defendant or a determination as to the certifiability of any
class if the merits of class certification had been litigated in the Action, or in any
other action.
5.

The Court hereby finds that the Notice of Settlement, as mailed to all

Class Members on February 11 and February 26, 2013, fairly and adequately
described the proposed Settlement, the manner in which Class Members could
object to or participate in the Settlement, and the manner in which Class Members
could opt out of the Settlement Class; was the best notice practicable under the
circumstances; was valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and
complied fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all other
applicable laws.
6.

The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been

afforded to Class Members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be given final approval. Accordingly, the
Court hereby determines that all Class Members who did not file a timely and
proper request to be excluded from the Settlement are bound by this Judgment and
Order of Final Approval.
7.

The Court hereby finds that the Settlement, including the Maximum

Settlement Amount, is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class, Plaintiffs and
Defendants, and is the product of good faith, arms-length negotiations between the
Parties, and further, that the Settlement is consistent with public policy, and fully
complies with all applicable provisions of law. The Court makes this finding based
on a weighing of the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses with
the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court also
finds that the Settlement is the result of non-collusive arms-length negotiations
between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class and Defendants,

28
4
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

after thorough factual and legal investigation. In granting final approval of the
Settlement, the Court considered the nature of the claims, the amounts paid in
settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among the Class Members, and the
fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties’ respective positions
rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial. Additionally, the Court finds
that the terms of the Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly
grant preferential treatment to any individual Class Member. The Court further
finds that the response of the Class to the Settlement supports final approval of the
Settlement. Specifically, no Class Member objects to the Settlement, and no Class
Members have opted out of the Settlement. All of the Class Members will receive
their share of the Settlement. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court finds
that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
to each Class Member. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003).
8.

The Court also hereby finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards

and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action settlement under
Rule 23, for the reasons stated in the Motion for Final Approval. Accordingly, the
Court hereby finally and unconditionally approves the Settlement and authorizes
Defendants to pay the individual Settlement Payments from the Settlement Pool in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
9.

The Court orders the Parties to implement, and comply with, the terms

of the Settlement.
10.

The Court approves the settlement of the Released Claims as defined

in the Settlement. As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, as defined in the
Settlement, all of the Released Claims of each Class Member who did not timely
opt out, as well as the Class Representatives’ Released Claims, are and shall be
deemed to be conclusively released as against the Defendant. Except as to such
rights or claims that may be created by the Settlement, all Class Members as of the

28
5
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

date of this Judgment and Order of Final Approval who did not timely opt out are
hereby forever barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any of the
Released Claims, either directly, representatively or in any other capacity, against
Defendant.
11.

Class Counsel Gilbert & Sackman, Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson

& Renick, LLP and Quinn Connor Weaver Davies & Rouco LLP shall continue to
serve as Interim Lead Counsel and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary
to effectuate the settlement, including the distribution of attorneys’ fees and costs;
12.

Defendants agreed in the Settlement not to object to Plaintiffs’ request

for a Service Payment in the amount of $15,000.00 to each of the Plaintiffs as
payment to them for their services as Plaintiffs and Class Representatives. The

12

Court has considered Plaintiffs’ request for a Service Payment and, good cause

13

appearing, hereby grants Plaintiffs’ request in the amount of $15,000.00 each and

14
15
16
17
18

authorizes Defendants to pay this amount from the Maximum Settlement Amount
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
13.

Defendants further agreed in the Settlement not to oppose any motion

by Plaintiffs for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs requesting up to one-third of
the Maximum Settlement Amount , to be approved by the Court. The Court has

19

considered Plaintiffs’ motion for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs and, good

20

cause appearing, hereby awards Class Counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount of

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

$3,039,297.25 and costs in the sum of $98,315.29, and authorizes Defendants to
pay such amounts from the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement.
14.

Defendants further agreed in the Settlement to pay from the Maximum

Settlement Amount the reasonable costs of the Claims Administrator associated
with notices to the Class and the administration of the Settlement and all costs
associated with distribution of individual Settlement Payment to Class Members.

28
6
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby authorizes payment of $58,806.26 from the
Maximum Settlement Amount, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. In
addition, the Court approves the payment of up to $4,000 for Escrow Costs from
the Maximum Settlement Amount.
15.

Defendants shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest,

attorneys’ fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability, in connection with the
above-captioned action except as provided in the Settlement.
16.

The Court hereby grants final approval of the Settlement and, in

accordance with the terms of the Settlement, hereby enters judgment approving the
terms of the Settlement and ordering that the Action be dismissed in accordance
with the Settlement. The Action is dismissed on the merits with prejudice on a
class-wide basis. The Class Representatives’ Released Claims, as set forth in the
Settlement, are dismissed on the merits with prejudice.
17.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment and Order of Final

Approval, the Court retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action,
Plaintiffs, all Class Members and Defendant for purposes of supervising,
implementing, interpreting and enforcing this Judgment and Order of Final
Approval and the Settlement. Nothing in this Judgment and Order of Final
Approval precludes any action to enforce the Parties’ obligations under the
Settlement or under this Judgment and Order of Final Approval.
18.

If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance

with the terms of the Settlement, this Judgment and Order of Final Approval and all
orders entered in connection herewith shall be vacated and shall have no further
force or effect.
19.

The Court hereby finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, that this Judgment should be entered and further finds
that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment, as a Final

28
7
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION

1
2
3
4
5

Judgment, as to the Parties to the Settlement. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby
directed to enter Judgment forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5/6
Dated:_________________, 2013

_______________________________
Philip S. Gutierrez
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF JOINT STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND DISMISSING ACTION