Alvarado et al v. Nederend et al

Filing 75

ORDER and JUDGMENT signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/2/2011. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

(Fresno Division)

6
7
8
9

OCTAVIO ALVARADO, PABLO
MARTINEZ, OMAR GOMEZ, DANIEL
GOMEZ, JOSE DE JESUS GARCIA, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals,

(1)

CONFIRMING
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
CLASS;
GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT;

(3)

APPROVING CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES INCENTIVE
PAYMENTS;

(4)

APPROVING CLASS
COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS;

(5)

APPROVING SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR FEES;

(6)

APPROVING PAYMENT OF
PAGA PENALITES

vs.

12
13

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

(2)

PLAINTIFF,

10
11

Case No. 1:08-cv-01099-OWW-MJS

REX NEDEREND AND SHERI NEDEREND
(dba “Northstar Dairy,” “Wildwood Farms,”
“Freeway Associates”)

14
DEFENDANTS.
15
16
17
18
19
20

(7)

ENTERING FINAL
JUDGMENT

21
22
23
24
25

On May 16, 2011 a hearing was held on the motion by Plaintiffs and class representatives
Octavio Alvarado, Pablo Martinez, Omar Gomez, Daniel Gomez, and Jose De Jesus Garcia

26

(“Plaintiffs”), for Final Certification of a settlement class in this action, Final Approval of the parties’

27

proposed settlement, approval of Class Representative incentive payments, approval of attorney’s fees

28
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01099-OWW-MJS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

and costs, approving settlement administrator’s fees, and ordering judgment in the case.

Stan S.

1
2
3
4

Mallison appeared from Mallison & Martinez on behalf of Plaintiffs. Defendants did not appear. No
objectors appeared at the time of the hearing.
The Court having read and considered the papers on the motion, the arguments of counsel, and

5

the law, and good cause appearing therefore,

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

The Court has jurisdiction over this action and the parties’ proposed settlement under 28

8
9

U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1367, as plaintiffs’ original complaint was brought under the Agricultural

10

Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.; and related California wage-and-hour law; the Court

11

has original jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ federal law claims; and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction

12

over plaintiffs’ state-law claims because they arise from the same alleged transactions and occurrences as

13

do plaintiffs’ federal-law claims.

14

2.

For the reasons stated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the Court finds that

15
the action meets all the requirements for class certification, and it is hereby ordered that the Settlement
16
17
18

Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of settlement of this action.
3.

The parties’ Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) (attached as Ex. 1 to Declaration of

19

Stan S. Mallison in Support of Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is granted as it meets the

20

criteria for final settlement approval. The Settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair,

21

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

22

treat all Class Members fairly.

23
4.

The parties’ Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Conditional Certification of

24
25

Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Hearing Date for Final Court Approval (“Class

26

Notice”), and proposed forms of Claim Form and Election Not to Participate in Settlement (collectively

27

the “Class Notice Packet”) were sufficient to inform Class Members of the terms of the Settlement; their

28
2
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01099-OWW-MJS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

rights under the Settlement; their rights to object to the settlement; their right to receive a Settlement
1
2

Share or elect not to participate in the Settlement; the processes for receiving a Settlement Share, electing

3

not to participate in the Settlement or Objecting to the Settlement; and the date and location of the final

4

approval hearing. Therefore, the Court finds and determines that the parties’ notice procedures were

5

completed and were constitutionally sound, because individual notices were mailed to all class members

6

whose identities are known to the parties, and such notice was the best notice practicable.

7

5.

The following class of persons are certified as the Class in this action solely for the

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

purposes of the Settlement: 138 current and former Dairy employees who worked between July 30, 2004
to September 7, 2010.
6.

All Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form within thirty days after

the date the Settlement Administrator mailed the Class Notice Packet will receive a Settlement Share.
7.

Class Members were provided with the opportunity to comment on, or object to, the

Settlement, as well as to elect not to participate in the Settlement. No Class Members filed written

15
objections to the Settlement as part of the parties’ notice procedures nor stated intent to appear at the final
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

approval hearing.
8.

Simpluris Inc. is awarded $15,000 for their services as Settlement Administrator, pursuant

to the terms set forth in the Settlement.
9.

Class Representatives Octavio Alvarado, Pablo Martinez, Omar Gomez, Daniel Gomez,

and Jose De Jesus Garcia are awarded $7,500 as incentive payments pursuant to the terms set forth in the
settlement.

23
10.

Class Counsel, Mallison & Martinez, are awarded $165,523 of the gross recovery in

24
25
26
27

attorneys fees and $10,000 in costs for their work and costs incurred in prosecuting this case.
11.

The California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payment of $10,000 to the State

of California is approved.

28
3
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01099-OWW-MJS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

12.

By means of this Final Approval Order, this Court hereby enters final judgment in this

1
2
3
4
5
6

action, as defined in Rule 58(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13.

This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’

fees except as provided by the Settlement and this order.
14.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or in

connection with the Settlement.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: June 2, 2011

12

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01099-OWW-MJS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com