Dominic Clesceri et al v. Beach City Investigations & Protective Services Inc et al

Filing 51

Order and JUDGMENT of Final Approval of Settlement and award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. The Court hereby approves the award of $25,000 in reasonable attorneys fees and $3,150.28 for reimbursement of costs to Class Counsel, Harris & Ruble. The Court hereby approves the award of $25,000 in reasonable attorneys fees and $3,150.28 for reimbursement of costs to Class Counsel, Harris & Ruble. The Claims Administrator is hereby ordered to ma ke payments pursuant to the terms of this Order and the Settlement. The Claims Administrators request that $8,345.34 be reserved from the settlement amount for payment of costs relating to the administration of the claims procedure and distribution of individual settlement amounts to participating Class Members is approved. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (twdb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Alan Harris (SBN 146079)
Abigail Treanor (SBN 228610)
HARRIS & RUBLE
6424 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90038
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail];
[e-mail]

O
JS-6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dominic Clesceri and Gabriel Rodriguez

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DOMINIC CLESCERI and
GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

v.
BEACH CITY INVESTIGATIONS
& PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
INC., a Nevada Corporation,
KEVIN HACKIE, an individual,
and Doe One through and including
Doe Ten,
Defendants.

Case No: CV-10-03873 JST (RZx)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF
FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Assigned to the Honorable Josephine S.
Tucker, Courtroom 10A, Santa Ana
Date:
May 16, 2011
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Location: 411 West Fourth Street
Courtroom 10A
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Filed in State Court April 10, 2010
Removed May 21, 2010
FSC: N/A
Trial: N/A

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS

1
2

On May 16, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the Court, with the Honorable Josephine S.

3

Tucker presiding, conducted a final settlement hearing and heard Plaintiffs Dominic

4

Clesceri and Gabriel Rodriguez’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) application for final approval

5

of the Settlement set forth in the “Class-Action Settlement and Release” (the

6

“Settlement”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant Beach City Investigations & Protective

7

Services, Inc. and Kevin Hackie (collectively, “Defendants”), and Plaintiffs’ application

8

for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. Defendants do not oppose

9

the Motions. The Court has considered all papers filed, and the other information

10

presented, and based on those papers and information presented, IT IS HEREBY

11

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

12

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, Clesceri

13

v. Beach City Investigations & Protective Services, Inc., United States District Court for

14

the Central District of California Case No. CV-10-03873 JST (RZx) (the “Litigation”),

15

and over all parties to this Litigation, including all members of the Settlement Class,

16

proceeding as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”) and

17

collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §

18

216(b).

19

2.

As previously held in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, a Settlement

20

Class (“Class” or “Settlement Class”) has been certified under Rule 23 and the FLSA, for

21

settlement purposes only, and is defined as follows: “All Beach City Investigations &

22

Protective Services, Inc., employees and/or independent contractors who worked as

23

security personnel at an AT&T store location in California between January 1, 2010, and

24

the date of preliminary approval of Settlement [January 27, 2011].” All persons who fall

25

within the definition of the Class but who timely requested to be excluded from the

26

Settlement are not included in the Class.

27
28

3.

The Court hereby approves the Settlement and finds that said settlement is,

in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class. In making the
2
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS

1

determination that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be

2

approved, the Court has considered (i) the strengths and weaknesses in Plaintiffs’ case,

3

(ii) the risks, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, (iii) the risks to

4

Plaintiffs of establishing and maintaining class and collective-action status, (iv) the

5

monetary amount of the settlement, including the amounts of the individual payments

6

that will be made to participating Settlement Class Members, (v) the extent of informal

7

and formal discovery that has been conducted by the parties, (vi) the views of the parties’

8

respective counsel, and (vii) the absence of any objection whatsoever.

9

4.

The Court finds that there are common issues of fact and law that affect

10

Plaintiffs and the Class Members, which include: (1) whether the Class Members were

11

paid all of the overtime wages owing to them, (2) whether the Class Members were

12

properly given ten-minute rest periods and thirty-minute meal breaks, (3) whether

13

Defendant provided adequate wage statements in compliance with section 226 of the

14

California Labor Code, (4) whether the Class Members whose employment with

15

Defendant had terminated were paid all of their wages by the relevant due date, and (5)

16

whether the Settlement Class Members were employees or independent contractors. As

17

Plaintiffs need only establish one common question of law or fact in order to meet the

18

low threshold set by Rule 23(a)(2), Plaintiffs’ showing satisfies this requirement.

19

5.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Class they seek

20

to represent. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical to the members of the Class because they

21

worked as security guards at AT&T store locations in California and were not paid

22

adequate overtime compensation, not provided adequate rest periods and meal breaks,

23

and received inadequate wage statements.

24
25
26
27

6.

The Court finds that the numerosity requirement is met as there are

272 Class Members.
7.

The Court determines that the notice provided to the Class was the best

notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice.

28
3
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS

1

8.

The proposed Class Representatives have fairly and adequately protected the

2

interests of the Settlement Class. They have retained counsel who have the experience

3

and resources necessary to provide adequate representation of the Class and meet the

4

requirements of Rule 23(g)(1).

5

9.

As previously held in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Court

6

appoints as Class Counsel, Alan Harris and Abigail Treanor of the law firm of Harris &

7

Ruble.

8
9
10
11

10.

As previously held in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Court

appoints Dominic Clesceri and Gabriel Rodriguez as the representatives of the Class and
FLSA collective action.
11.

The Class, including Plaintiffs and all the Class Members who have not

12

submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion (and so who are not “Opt Outs”), shall

13

be deemed conclusively to have made the following releases against Defendants:

14

[A]ll claims against Defendants by any member of the Settlement Class that

15

arise from, touch or concern the allegations in the Complaint including but

16

not limited to claims for unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal or rest

17

breaks or pay one hour’s wages in lieu thereof, and all related statutory

18

claims, including but not limited to, alleged violation of California Labor

19

Code sections 201–203, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1199, 2698, and 2699,

20

California Business and Professions Code sections 17000 and 17200 et seq.,

21

Wage Order No. 4-2001 issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission, the

22

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Civil Code sections 52 and 52.1, and all

23

claims for attorneys’ fees and costs; provided, however, that members of the

24

Settlement Class who do not submit Claim Forms that include consents to

25

become party-plaintiffs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) will not be releasing their

26

claims under FLSA. These releases shall run through the date the Court

27

grants preliminary approval of this Agreement [January 27, 2011].

28

Only members of the Class who filed a Claim Form that included an FLSA opt-in
4
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS

1
2
3
4

provision will release FLSA claims.
12.

The Court hereby approves the award of $25,000 in reasonable attorneys’

fees and $3,150.28 for reimbursement of costs to Class Counsel, Harris & Ruble.
13.

The Court hereby approves a class representative enhancement fee to

5

Plaintiff Dominic Clesceri in the amount of $3,000 and a class representative

6

enhancement fee to Plaintiff Gabriel Rodriguez in the amount of $3,000.

7

14.

The Claims Administrator is hereby ordered to make payments pursuant to

8

the terms of this Order and the Settlement. The Claims Administrator’s request that

9

$8,345.34 be reserved from the settlement amount for payment of costs relating to the

10

administration of the claims procedure and distribution of individual settlement amounts

11

to participating Class Members is approved.

12
13
14

15.

All Claim Forms postmarked on or before April 2, 2011, shall be deemed

valid and those Class Members shall participate in the Settlement.
16.

The entire Litigation, including any claims asserted by any of the named

15

Plaintiff, and all claims asserted by Settlement Class Members who have not filed timely

16

and valid requests for exclusion, are hereby dismissed with prejudice. There were four

17

timely and valid requests for exclusion filed by Anthony Cannata, Ben Covarrubias,

18

Clark Fujiwara, and Gregory Robert Peterson. The parties shall bear all their own costs

19

and attorneys’ fees, except as otherwise set forth in the Settlement or this Judgment and

20

Order.

21
22

17.

The Court reserves jurisdiction, without affecting the finality of this

Judgment and Judgment, over:

23

(a)

Implementation of the Settlement; and

24

(b)

Enforcing and administering the Settlement.

25

18.

Notice of this Judgment has been given to the Class Members through the

26

Class Notice. Notice of Entry of this Judgment may be served on the Settlement Class

27

through service upon Class Counsel.

28
5
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS

1

19.

The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay of entry of this Order

2

and Judgment of Final Approval of Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

3

and hereby directs its entry.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

6
7
8
9
10

Dated: June 10, 2011
The Honorable Josephine S. Tucker
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING FEES/COSTS