Collette McDonald v. Airport Terminal Services, Inc. et al
Filing
54
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL by Judge Virginia A. Phillips Re Order granting final approval 52 : (see document image for further details). This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Alan Harris (SBN 146079)
David Zelenski (SBN 231768)
HARRIS & RUBLE
4771 Cromwell Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90027
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
aharris@harrisandruble.com
dzelenski@harrisandruble.com
John P. Dorigan (SBN 98964)
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
78-560 Via Bolero
La Quinta, California 92253
Telephone: (760) 564-3804
Facsimile: (760) 564-3807
jpdorigan@aol.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
COLLETTE McDONALD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
Case No. EDCV 11-01946 VAP (SPx)
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
Assigned to Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
v.
AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1–100, inclusive,
Date: November 18, 2013
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 2
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
On July 16, 2013, this Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and
2
General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) reached in the within action between Plaintiff
3
Collette McDonald, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Defendant
4
Airport Terminal Services, Inc.1 In connection with the Order granting preliminary
5
approval, the Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class defined in the Settlement
6
Agreement, namely, all non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant within
7
California from November 2, 2007, to July 16, 2013. Plaintiff has now moved the Court
8
for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, as well as for an award of fees and costs
9
associated with prosecuting and settling the Lawsuit. Having read and considered the
10
unopposed moving papers, having conducted a final fairness hearing as required by
11
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), having issued an Order granting final approval
12
[Docket No. 52], and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
13
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1.
14
The following Class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c):
15
All members of the Settlement Class preliminarily approved on July 16, 2013, who did
16
not properly and timely request exclusion pursuant to the procedures specified in the
17
Settlement Agreement. As explained in the Order granting final approval, the Settlement
18
Class meets the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and the predominance requirement of
19
Rule 23(b).
2.
20
As also explained in the Order granting final approval, the Settlement
21
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class when balanced against the
22
probable outcome of extensive and costly litigation. Substantial informal discovery,
23
investigation, and research have been conducted such that the Parties’ respective counsel
24
have been reasonably able to evaluate their respective positions. The Settlement
25
Agreement was the result of intensive, non-collusive, arm’s length negotiations,
26
27
28
1
Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms herein have the meanings used in the
Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the October 21, 2013, Declaration of Alan
Harris [Docket No. 45].
2
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
including private mediation before an experienced wage-and-hour mediator; thorough
2
factual and legal investigation; and the good-faith exchange of information and
3
documents. The Court has considered the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the amounts and
4
kinds of benefits to be paid under the Settlement Agreement, the allocation of the
5
settlement proceeds to the Class, and the fact that the Settlement Agreement represents a
6
compromise of the Parties’ respective positions rather than the result of a finding of
7
liability at trial. The Court further finds that the response of the Class to the terms of the
8
Settlement Agreement supports final approval. Specifically, of the 1,238 individuals in
9
the Settlement Class, 374 individuals submitted timely claims, and an additional 12
10
individuals submitted untimely claims through November 14, 2013, equal to 31% of the
11
Settlement Class. This is within the response range of other approved class-wide
12
settlements. In addition, only one member of the Settlement Class submitted an
13
objection, and only sixteen members validly requested exclusion. The absence of a large
14
number of objectors and opt-outs raises a strong presumption that the Settlement
15
Agreement’s terms are favorable. As to the lone objection—which takes issue with the
16
amount of attorney’s fees and costs—it was never actually filed pursuant to the
17
procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement and therefore is not properly before the
18
Court. In any event, even if it were before the Court, it lacks merit and would be
19
overruled based on the Court’s conclusions regarding the reasonableness of the claimed
20
fees and costs, as discussed below in paragraph 8 of this Judgment. The Settlement
21
Agreement thus merits final approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
22
3.
As explained in the Order granting final approval, the form, manner, and
23
content of the Class Notice delivered to the Settlement Class constituted the best notice
24
practicable under the circumstances. Individual notice was provided to all members of
25
the Settlement Class by regular mail to their respective last-known addresses on file with
26
Defendant, as updated by the Claims Administrator through the National Change of
27
Address database. The Claims Administrator took further steps to provide the Class
28
Notice, claim form, and exclusion-request form to the Settlement Class by performing a
3
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
skip-trace on all returned-undeliverable mail. The Class Notice informed members of the
2
Settlement Class of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their right to object to the
3
Settlement Agreement or to request exclusion, and their right to appear in person or by
4
counsel at the final-approval hearing. The Class Notice provided ample time for
5
members of the Settlement Class to follow these procedures. Accordingly, the form,
6
manner, and content of the Class Notice meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
7
Procedure 23(c)(2).
8
4.
This Judgment applies to all claims or causes of action settled or released
9
under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and shall be fully binding with respect to
10
all Class Members. In other words, Class Members are hereby barred and permanently
11
enjoined from asserting, instituting, or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any and
12
all claims released as provided in the Settlement Agreement. All of the released claims
13
shall be conclusively deemed released and discharged as to the Released Parties as
14
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
15
16
17
18
19
5.
This Judgment shall have the force and effect of res judicata as to each Class
Member.
6.
All claims asserted by Plaintiff in the Lawsuit are hereby dismissed with
prejudice.
7.
All payments to Class Members, Class Counsel, and the Claims
20
Administrator shall be disbursed pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
21
Class Counsel have requested, and Defendant does not oppose, that the twelve above-
22
noted untimely submitted claims be honored. In the interests of fairness and justice, the
23
Court finds that those claims shall be treated as if they were timely. Payments for Class
24
Counsel’s fees and costs, on the one hand, and the Claims Administrator’s fees and costs,
25
on the other hand, shall be made in the amounts specified below in paragraphs 8 and 9.
26
8.
Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of John P. Dorigan are qualified to
27
represent the Class, and the Court confirms their appointment as Class Counsel. Class
28
Counsel have requested attorney’s fees in the amount of $82,500.00 and reimbursement
4
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
of incurred costs in the amount of $8,069.34. As explained in the Order granting final
2
approval, the Court finds the requested amounts are fair and reasonable in light of the
3
time and effort expended by Class Counsel in prosecuting the Lawsuit, which time and
4
effort benefitted the Class, and in light of the settlement awards each Class Member will
5
receive. Specifically, Class Counsel’s requested fee is significantly below their
6
submitted lodestar, as computed using the adjusted Laffey matrix. Moreover, even when
7
Class Counsel’s fees and costs are awarded as requested, the Court finds Class Members
8
will be reasonably compensated for missed meals under Plaintiff’s theory of the case, and
9
each participating Class Member will be reasonably compensated with an additional pre-
10
tax award of $232 for Plaintiff’s alleged non-meal-period and derivative claims.
11
Accordingly, the requested fees and costs are granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
12
Procedure 23(h).
9.
13
As explained in the Order granting final approval, the Court approves the
14
payment of settlement-administration fees and expenses to the Claims Administrator—
15
Gilardi & Co., LLC—in the amount of $20,000.
10.
16
As also explained in the Order granting final approval, the Court finds that it
17
is appropriate to grant an enhancement payment in the amount of $2,000 to Plaintiff in
18
recognition of her contributions to the Lawsuit and her services to the Class. This
19
payment shall be made pursuant to the procedures specified in the Settlement Agreement.
11.
20
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the Court hereby
21
retains jurisdiction over the parties, including the Class, for the purpose of construing,
22
enforcing, and administering this Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.
23
This Judgment shall constitute a final judgment for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 58.
25
/////
26
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
2
3
12.
This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with all parties to
bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: _December 03, 2013_
U.S. District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
1
Submitted Pursuant to Central District of California Local Rule 5-4.4 by:
2
3
HARRIS & RUBLE
4
/s/ David Zelenski
David Zelenski
Alan Harris
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
Endorsed Pursuant to Central District of California Local Rule 52-8 by:
9
10
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
11
/s/ Simon Yang
Aaron R. Lubeley
Simon L. Yang
Attorneys for Defendant
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
[PROPOSED] J. OF DISMISSAL
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?