Jeffrey Lee Allen v. Labor Ready Southwest, Inc. et al

Filing 270

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEYS FEES, AND INTERVENTION 220 , 221 , 256 , 257 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court GRANTS preliminary approval to the settlement. The Court also preliminarily approves a payment of $18,750 by Defendant Labor Ready to the State of California, Labor & Workforce Development Agency, in satisfaction of PAGA penalties owed to the State of California. The Court confirms Theirman Buck LLP, Aequitas Law Group, LawOffice of Shaun Setareh, Law Of fices of Louis Benowitz, and CanlasLaw Group as Class Counsel as described in the Motion for Attorneys Fees.The Court confirms Jeffrey Lee Allen as the Class Representative and preliminarily approves a service award of $5,000.00 for Allen. The Court DENIES the Motion to Intervene. (SEE DOCUMENT RE Schedule of Dates for Further Proceedings and other specifics) (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

JEFFREY LEE ALLEN, on behalf
of himself, all others
similarly situated, the
general public, and as an
“aggrieved employee” under
the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General
Act,

15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
18
19
20

LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, INC.,
a Washington corporation
doing business in the State
of California,
Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 09-04266 DDP (AGRx)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND
INTERVENTION
[Dkt. Nos. 220, 221, 256, 257]

21
22

After having heard extensive oral argument and reviewed ample

23

briefing on the Motions — including renewed and amended Motions —

24

the Court adopts the following Order regarding the pending Motions

25

for Preliminary Settlement Approval, Attorneys’ Fees, and

26

Intervention.

27

(attorneys’ fees), 256 (revised preliminary settlement), 257

28

(motion to intervene).)
///

(Dkt. Nos. 220 (preliminary settlement), 221

1

A.

Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval

2

In reaching this decision, the Court considered the arguments

3

and papers of the parties as well as of the objectors in this case.

4

Based on the detailed discussion at the hearing regarding the

5

settlement process and history, the catalyst effect for nonmonetary

6

relief, attorneys’ fees calculations, and other considerations, the

7

Court GRANTS preliminary approval to the settlement.

8

256.)

9

(Dkt. No.

This case has a long and complex procedural history.

Even

10

though the monetary payout is not particularly large in this case,

11

there were many practical difficulties and issues involved in the

12

case, as discussed on the record and reflected by the procedural

13

history.

14

amount of payment to the class members in this case, the

15

administrative costs of making those payments, the transient nature

16

of the workers involved in the class, and how all these factors

17

related to the claims process as proposed as well as the ultimate

18

relief in the settlement agreement.

19

The Court discussed with the parties the relative low

First, the claims process is consistent with providing broad

20

notice to potential class members.

Second, the nonmonetary relief

21

component of the parties’ settlement is more significant than the

22

monetary component.

23

nonmonetary benefits in light of the transient nature of the class

24

and the low amount of potential recovery.

25

nonmonetary benefits to the class are disproportionally important

26

compared to the monetary component of the settlement.

27

have also monetized the nonmonetary relief through the use of an

The settlement agreement provides significant

28
2

Thus, in this case, the

The parties

1

expert and begun executing the nonmonetary relief in the agreement.

2

(See Cohen Decl., Dkt. No. 256-6; Ferencz Decl., Dkt. No. 256-7.)

3

Therefore, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the

4

settlement of this action, based upon terms set forth in the

5

Settlement Agreement on file herein.

6

The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed class

7

satisfies the requirements of a settlement class under Rule 23 of

8

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

9

papers, the proposed class is so numerous that joinder is

As set forth in the parties’

10

impracticable, there are common questions of law and fact to the

11

class, the class representative’s claims are typical, and Plaintiff

12

will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

13

Court also preliminarily finds that common issues predominate over

14

any individualized issues.

15

The

The settlement agreement also appears to be the product of

16

arm’s length and informed negotiations, as the parties represented

17

to the Court at oral argument.

18

appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class.

19

The agreement, as described above,

The Court approves of the notice procedures and proposed

20

notices as provided in the Motion.

21

approves a payment of $18,750 by Defendant Labor Ready to the State

22

of California, Labor & Workforce Development Agency, in

23

satisfaction of PAGA penalties owed to the State of California.

The Court also preliminarily

24

B.

25

The Court confirms Theirman Buck LLP, Aequitas Law Group, Law

26

Office of Shaun Setareh, Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, and Canlas

27

Law Group as Class Counsel as described in the Motion for

28

Attorneys’ Fees.

Attorneys’ Fees

(Dkt. No. 221.)

The Court preliminarily approves
3

1

an award of attorneys’ fees of 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund.

2

This amount is consistent with the lodestar calculations.

3

additional 5% is justified based on the additional work that

4

Plaintiff’s counsel has put into the case since the beginning and

5

particularly during the latest appeal, remand, and continued

6

settlement approval attempts.

7

litigation expenses to be reimbursed as detailed in the parties’

8

agreement.

9

Representative and preliminarily approves a service award of $5,000

10

The

The Court approves reasonable

The Court confirms Jeffrey Lee Allen as the Class

for Allen.

11

C.

Motion to Intervene

12

The Court DENIES the Motion to Intervene.

(Dkt. No. 257.)

13

The Court incorporates its prior findings from its previous

14

decisions on Proposed Intervenors’ Motions to Intervene.

15

Orders, Dkt. Nos. 138, 207.)

16

untimely and there are no new facts in the case or arguments made

17

in the moving papers to establish grounds of a timely intervention.

(See

The proposed intervention is still

18

D.

19

Defendant has 15 calendar days after this Order to submit

Schedule of Dates for Further Proceedings

20

class member information to the claims administrator.

21

administrator has 30 calendar days from this Order to mail the

22

notice, claim form, and opt-out form to the class; to post the

23

notices; and to set up the web site.

24

calendar days after the mailing of the notice and claim form to

25

postmark their claims or opt-out.

26

The claims

Class members have 45

The parties have 30 calendar days after the class members’

27

claims deadline to file a noticed Motion for Final Approval of

28

Class Action Settlement and Request for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs,
4

1

Class Representative Service Award, and Settlement Administration

2

Costs.

3

Final Approval hearing to file with the Court any objections to the

4

Final Settlement.

Any potential objectors have twenty-one days before the

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 26, 2016
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5