Denise Reddall v. Quest Diagnostics Inc et al

Filing 56

AMENDED ORDER: 1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; 2. FINALLY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; 3. AWARDING FEES, COSTS, AND REPRESENTATIVE ENCHANCEMENT AWARD; AND 4. ENTERING JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ASFOLLOWS:1. The Court ha s jurisdiction over the parties to this Action, including allmembers of the Plaintiff Settlement Class as defined in the Conditional ClassCertification Order and Section 2.22 of the Settlement Agreement (Agreement)212345678910111213141516171819202122 232425262728previously filed in this Action. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that theproposed Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. The requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfie d because the SettlementClass is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there arequestions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, the claims of Plaintiff aretypical of the claims of the Settlement Class, and Plaintiff will fairly and adequatelyprotect the interests of the Settlement Class. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) aresatisfied because questions of law or fact common to Settlement Class Memberspredominate over any questions affecting only individual Settl ement Class Members.Accordingly, solely for the purposes of effectuating this settlement, this Court herebycertifies the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Denise Reddall is appointed as the Class Representative forpu rposes of Settlement. The Court awards Denise Reddall an enhancement payment of$5,000, as fair and reasonable compensation for her services, to be paid according to theterms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court hereby directs payment to the Se ttlement Administrator, CPTGroup, Inc., for fees and expenses, the amount of $26,500 to be paid from the GrossSettlement Fund, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves payment to the California Labor and WorkforceDevelopment Agen cy in the amount of $4,500, paid from the Gross Settlement Fund,pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $150,000(25% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and $9,350.81 in costs, as supported by declaration,to be paid to Class Counsel according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (See document for further details) (bp)

1
2
3
4
5

Ira Spiro (State Bar No. 67641)
[e-mail]
Linh Hua (State Bar No. 247419)
[e-mail]
SPIRO LAW CORP.
th
11377 W. Olympic Blvd., 5 Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

8

JS-6

Brian J. Mankin (State Bar No. 216228)
[e-mail]
FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
4590 Allstate Drive
Riverside, California 92501
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

9

Filed: 12/22/14

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6
7

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DENISE REDDALL, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.;
)
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL )
LABORATORIES, INC.;
)
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NICHOLS )
INSTITUTE;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant.
_______________________________

CASE NO. CV 13-2099-GHK (AGRx)
[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER:
1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT
CLASS;
2. FINALLY APPROVING PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT;
3. AWARDING FEES, COSTS, AND
REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT
AWARD; AND,
4. ENTERING JUDGMENT

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2

Plaintiff Denise Reddall (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Quest Diagnostics

3

Incorporated, Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., and Quest Diagnostics

4

Nichols Institute (“Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants collectively referred to herein

5

as the “Parties”) have reached a settlement for a putative class action.

6

On May 29, 2014, this Court (1) certified a class for settlement purposes; (2)

7

preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed class action settlement as fair,

8

reasonable, and adequate; and (3) authorized notice to the Settlement Class of the terms

9

of the proposed settlement. Having completed the process of providing notice to the

10

Settlement Class, and no objectors having come forward, Plaintiff moves for final

11

approval of a class action settlement of the claims asserted against Defendants in this

12

action, memorialized in the Revised Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement

13

Agreement”) (see Declaration of Linh Hua in Support of Motion For Final Approval of

14

Class Action Settlement, Dkt. 48-2, Exhibit A).

15

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties stipulate to certification of the

16

Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement is conditioned

17

upon, among other things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized terms in this Order shall

18

have the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement unless indicated otherwise. After

19

reviewing the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class

20

Action Settlement, Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class

21

Representative Enhancement Payment, and other related documents, and having heard the

22

argument of Counsel for the respective Parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS

23

FOLLOWS:

24

1.

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this Action, including all

25

members of the Plaintiff Settlement Class as defined in the Conditional Class

26

Certification Order and Section 2.22 of the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”)

27
28
2

1

previously filed in this Action. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the

2

proposed Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure. The requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because the Settlement

4

Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there are

5

questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, the claims of Plaintiff are

6

typical of the claims of the Settlement Class, and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately

7

protect the interests of the Settlement Class. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are

8

satisfied because questions of law or fact common to Settlement Class Members

9

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members.

10

Accordingly, solely for the purposes of effectuating this settlement, this Court hereby

11

certifies the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

12

2.

The following persons are certified as Settlement Class Members solely for

13

the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: All current and former hourly-paid,

14

non-exempt employees of Defendants who have worked in California in Patient Service

15

Centers during the Class Period (April 29, 2011 through May 29, 2014), excluding those

16

current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendants who, as of October

17

28, 2013, have brought on their own behalf (either in pro per or through counsel) and

18

have pending any lawsuits, arbitrations or administrative claims (such as Labor

19

Commissioner claims) against Defendants.

20

3.

The Court hereby grants final approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement

21

as it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The Settlement is fair, adequate, and

22

reasonable; appears to be the product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations; and

23

treats all Settlement Class Members fairly.

24

4.

The Court finds that the distribution by U.S. first-class mail of individual

25

notices to all Settlement Class Members whose identities are known to the Parties was the

26

best notice practicable. The Notice was sufficient to fully and accurately inform

27
28
3

1

Settlement Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the

2

Settlement, their rights to object to the Settlement, their right to receive a payment under

3

the Settlement or elect not to participate in the Settlement, and the processes for doing so.

4

The distribution of the Notice has been completed in substantial conformity with the

5

Preliminary Approval Order. The Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule

6

of Civil Procedure 23 and all applicable constitutional requirements.

7

5.

The Court hereby orders that Settlement Class Members who did not timely

8

exclude themselves from the Settlement have released all claims or causes of action

9

settled under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

10

6.

Having received no objections, and the time for submitting such objections

11

having passed, the Court finds that no valid objections have been submitted and no

12

objections will be considered by the Court. Settlement Class Members who did not timely

13

object to the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement are barred from

14

prosecuting or pursuing any appeal of this Order.

15

7.

Having received one request for exclusion from the Settlement, the Court

16

finds that Agueda Espinoza-Moran is not bound by the terms of the Settlement

17

Agreement.

18

8.

The Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is not an admission

19

by Defendants nor is this Order a finding of the validity of any claims in the lawsuit or of

20

any wrongdoing by Defendants. Neither this Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any

21

document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the terms of the Settlement

22

Agreement, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission by or against

23

Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever.

24

9.

The Court hereby directs Defendants to provide the entirety of the Gross

25

Settlement Fund and additional employer tax payments, as described in the Settlement

26

Agreement, to the Settlement Administrator for disbursement in accordance with the

27

terms of the Settlement Agreement.

28
4

1

10.

The Court hereby directs the Settlement Administrator to pay all Settlement

2

Class Members who did not request to be excluded from the Settlement, in accordance

3

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4

11.

Plaintiff Denise Reddall is appointed as the Class Representative for

5

purposes of Settlement. The Court awards Denise Reddall an enhancement payment of

6

$5,000, as fair and reasonable compensation for her services, to be paid according to the

7

terms of the Settlement Agreement.

8
9
10
11

12.

The Court hereby directs payment to the Settlement Administrator, CPT

Group, Inc., for fees and expenses, the amount of $26,500 to be paid from the Gross
Settlement Fund, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
13.

The Court approves payment to the California Labor and Workforce

12

Development Agency in the amount of $4,500, paid from the Gross Settlement Fund,

13

pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

14
15
16

14.

Linh Hua of Spiro Law Corp. and Brian J. Mankin of Fernandez & Lauby

LLP are appointed Class Counsel.
15.

The Court finds that the posting of Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of

17

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payment on the case

18

website satisfied the notice and objection opportunity required by In re Mercury

19

Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court finds that

20

no Settlement Class Member objected to the amount of any of the requested awards in

21

this matter.

22

16.

The Court grants an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $150,000

23

(25% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and $9,350.81 in costs, as supported by declaration,

24

to be paid to Class Counsel according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The

25

Court finds that: (a) the attorney’s fees awarded are reasonable after comparing the

26

request to the lodestar fee calculation; (b) Class Counsel’s efforts resulted in monetary

27

recovery for the Settlement Class; and (c) Class Counsel assumed risk when agreeing to

28
5

1
2
3
4

litigate this matter on a contingent basis.
17.

The Court hereby directs that the Clerk of the Court enter the Court’s Order

as a Final Judgment.
18.

The Court hereby orders that, without affecting the finality of the Final

5

Judgment, it reserves continuing jurisdiction over the matter and the Parties for the

6

purposes of implementing, enforcing and/or administering the Settlement or enforcing the

7

terms of the Judgment.

8
9

Immediately upon entry of this Judgment and Final Approval Order, the Second
Amended Complaint in this Action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

DATED: December 22, 2014

14
15
16

_______________________________
GEORGE H. KING
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6