Gudelia Santos et al v. Noble Management Group-California LLC et al
Filing
57
FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Related to: MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 51 , MOTION to Certify Class MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 55 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (rne)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JS 6
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Case No.: 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
GUDELIA SANTOS and
BERNARDINA TOVAR, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly CLASS ACTION
situated,
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT
CLASS;
vs.
2. FINALLY APPROVING
NOBLE MANAGEMENT GROUPPROPOSED AMENDED
CALIFORNIA, LLC; NOBLE
SETTLEMENT;
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; NOBLE 3. AWARDING FEES AND
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; and
COSTS; AND,
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
4. ENTERING JUDGMENT
Defendants.
NOTE CHANGES BY COURT
Date Action Filed: February 25, 2010
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 1
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Plaintiffs GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR (“Plaintiffs”)
3
and Defendant NOBLE MANAGEMENT GROUP-CALIFORNIA, LLC
4
(“Defendant”) have reached terms of settlement for a putative class action.
5
On June 24, 2011, this Court (1) certified a class for settlement purposes, (2)
6
preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed class action settlement as fair,
7
reasonable, and adequate, and (3) authorized notice to the settlement class of the
8
terms of the proposed settlement.
9
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for final approval of a class action
10
settlement of the claims asserted against Defendant in this action, memorialized in
11
the Joint Stipulation Of Class Action Settlement And Release Of Claims
12
(“Settlement Agreement”) (see October 11, 2011 Declaration of H. Scott Leviant In
13
Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement, at
14
Exh. 1). The Parties subsequently modified the release language set forth in the
15
Settlement Agreement (see, October 11, 2011 Declaration of H. Scott Leviant In
16
Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement, at
17
Exh. 2) (“First Amendment to Settlement Agreement”).
18
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties stipulate to certification
19
of a Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement is conditioned
20
on, among other things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized terms in this Order have
21
the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement unless indicated otherwise.
22
After reviewing the Settlement Agreement, the First Amendment to
23
Settlement Agreement, the Revised Class Notice, the Declarations of Counsel
24
regarding administration and valuation of the settlement and other related
25
documents, and having heard the argument of Counsel for the respective Parties, IT
26
IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
27
28
1.
The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of a
settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Page 2
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because the proposed Class is so numerous
2
that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact
3
common to the Class, the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class;
4
and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The
5
requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied because questions of law or fact common
6
to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class
7
Members.
8
2.
The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement as it
9
meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement falls within the
10
range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the
11
product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and treats all Class Members
12
fairly. The Court further finds that the Parties have conducted more than adequate
13
investigation and research, and the attorneys for the Parties are able to reasonably
14
evaluate their respective positions. The Court also finds that settlement at this time
15
will avoid additional substantial costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that
16
would be presented by the further prosecution of the action. The Court has
17
reviewed the monetary recovery being granted as part of the settlement and
18
recognizes the value accruing to the Settlement Class Members. The Court also
19
finds that no objections were submitted and no requests for exclusion were
20
received.
21
3.
The Parties’ notice plan was constitutionally sound because individual
22
notices were mailed to all Class Members whose identities are known to the Parties,
23
and such notice was the best notice practicable. The Class Notice was sufficient to
24
inform Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the
25
Settlement, their rights to object to the Settlement, their right to receive a payment
26
under the Settlement or elect not to participate in the Settlement, and the processes
27
for doing so. The distribution of the Class Notice directed to the Settlement Class
28
Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement has been completed in
Page 3
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
substantial conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Notice provided
2
due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein,
3
including the proposed settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
4
to all persons entitled to such notice. The Class Notice fully satisfied the
5
requirements of due process, having been sent to all Settlement Class Members
6
who could be identified through reasonable effort, and was the best notice
7
practicable under the circumstances.
8
9
4.
The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the
purpose of entering a settlement in this matter:
10
All room attendants employed in the State of California by
11
Defendant at any time from February 25, 2006 through September 10,
12
2010.
13
5.
Class Members are bound by the Settlement unless they submitted a
14
timely and valid written request to be excluded from the Settlement. The Court
15
orders that Settlement Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from
16
the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement have released those claims
17
against Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
18
6.
Having received no objections, and the time for submitting such
19
objections having past, the Court finds that no valid objections have been submitted
20
and no objections will be considered by the Court.
21
7.
The Court orders that Settlement Class Members who did not timely
22
object to the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement are barred from
23
prosecuting or pursuing any appeal of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval to
24
the Settlement.
25
8.
Plaintiffs GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR are
26
appointed the Class Representatives. Dennis F. Moss, H. Scott Leviant and Linh
27
Hua of Spiro Moss LLP and Joseph Lavi and Nick Ebrahimian of Lavi &
28
Ebrahimian LLP are appointed Class Counsel.
Page 4
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
9.
The Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is not an
2
admission by Defendant nor is this Order a finding of the validity of any claims in
3
the lawsuit or of any wrongdoing by Defendant. Neither this Order, the Settlement
4
Agreement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out
5
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, may be construed as, or may be used as an
6
admission by or against Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatever.
7
10.
The previously-filed Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, and
8
Costs was filed so as to satisfy the notice and objection opportunity required by In
9
re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010).
10
11.
The Court finds that Class Counsel has represented Plaintiffs on a
11
contingent-fee basis, and their efforts resulted in a reasonable recovery for the
12
Class. Accordingly, the Court grants an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the
13
total amount of $7,441.25, to be paid to Class Counsel according to the terms of the
14
JOINT STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF
15
CLAIMS. The Court also finds that:
(a)
16
Although Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide sufficient
17
information to support the reasonableness of the hours or hourly
18
rate claimed, based on its own experience and knowledge of rates
19
in the community, the attorney’s fees requested are reasonable;
(b)
20
action alleged in this action;
21
(c)
22
23
Class Counsel has had substantial experience with the causes of
12.
Class Counsel assumed risk when agreeing to litigate this matter.
The Court finds that GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA
24
TOVAR provided services to the Class. Despite the Court’s request, they provided
25
no details of the time or effort expended. They were no longer employed by
26
Defendant at the time the suit was filed, and do not attribute any lack of
27
employment to the filing or prosecution of the suit. The release provided by the
28
Class Representatives, however, is broader than that applicable to Class Members.
Page 5
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
Accordingly, the Court awards enhancement payments of $ 1,750, to be paid to
2
GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR according to the terms of the
3
Settlement Agreement.
4
5
6
13.
The Court directs that the Clerk of the Court enter the Court’s Order as
a Final Judgment.
14.
The Court orders that, without affecting the finality of the Final
7
Judgment, it reserves continuing jurisdiction over the parties for the purposes of
8
implementing, enforcing and administering the Settlement or enforcing the terms of
9
the Judgment.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/14/11
12
13
14
15
Dated:
DALE S. FISCHER
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6
Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?