Sanchez v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting 16 Findings and Recommendations in Full and Denying Plaintiffs' 9 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/26/2015. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

v.
FRITO-LAY, Inc.,
Defendant.
__________________________________/

1:14-cv-797-AWI-MJS
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
(Docs. 9, 16)

15
16

The matter now pending before this Court is a wage and hour putative class action, filed

17 on behalf of Frito-Lay maintenance mechanics, all alleged to have suffered multiple labor code
18 violations. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking conditional class
19 certification and preliminary approval settlement for a wage and hour class action. On August 5,
20 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter issued Findings and Recommendations,
21 recommending denial of class certification and providing a fourteen day period within which to
22 submit objections. To date, no objections have been filed.
23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

24 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
25 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
26

The Court would highlight the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiffs have

27 failed to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the Rule 23(a) requirements. See Amchem
28
1

1 Prods., Inc., v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (Courts must pay “undiluted, even
2 heightened, attention [to the Rule 23 considerations] in the settlement context.”). Specifically,
3 this Court agrees that Plaintiffs showing is inadequate as to both the commonality and typicality
4 requirements. See Doc. 16 at 7-9. Plaintiffs’ assumed violation rate is further illustrative of the
5 inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ submission; this Court cannot satisfy its obligation to determine the
6 fairness of the settlement agreement on behalf of the absent putative class members without
7 requiring proof of a violation rate based on something more than Plaintiffs’ conclusion. Id. at 16.
8 A full explanation of Defendant’s relevant employment policies complimented by an explanation
9 of how and how often they impacted the putative class members would likely go far to resolve
10 those issues.
11

For the reasons articulated above and in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

12 Recommendations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13

1. The Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full;

14

2. Plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of

15

class settlement is DENIED without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: August 26, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2