Sanchez v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Filing 76

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/29/2020. In Court Hearing set for 5/4/2021 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM

FRITO-LAY, INC,
Defendant.

16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
(Doc. Nos. 67, 74)

On September 30, 2019, the court granted plaintiff Eliazar Sanchez’s motion for

17
18

preliminary class certification and denied his motion for preliminary approval of class action

19

settlement (Doc. No. 67) because the court had concerns about the reasonableness and fairness of

20

the parties’ revised settlement agreement. (See generally Doc. No. 73.) In that order, the court

21

detailed its concerns and denied the motion “without prejudice to plaintiff renewing his motion

22

for preliminary approval of the settlement yet again to address the court’s concerns.” (Id. at 22.)
On October 22, 2019, the parties filed a “stipulation for an order granting preliminary

23
24

approval of the class action settlement and issuance of the class notice” (Doc. No. 74), which the

25

court construes as a request by plaintiff to renew his motion for preliminary approval of class

26

action settlement. Therein, the parties contend that they have addressed the court’s concerns, and

27

thus request that the court grant preliminary approval of their class action settlement. (Doc. No.

28

74.)
1

For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant plaintiff’s renewed motion for

1
2

preliminary approval of the parties’ class action settlement.1

3

BACKGROUND
The factual background of this case has been discussed in this court’s prior orders denying

4
5

plaintiff’s previous four motions for preliminary approval of their settlement and class

6

certification for settlement purposes. (See Doc. Nos. 16 at 2–4; 29 at 1–3; 51 at 1–3; 73 at 2–4.)

7

The court will not repeat that background in this order.

8

As relevant here, the court most recently denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

9

approval of the parties’ revised settlement agreement filed on November 29, 2018 because of the

10

following three deficiencies: (1) the revised settlement agreement’s release of claims for the

11

settlement class members was overbroad because it released claims for violations of California’s

12

Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

13

(“FLSA”), despite the fact that plaintiff did not allege claims under either act in his complaint in

14

this action, and it released claims up to the date of the revised settlement agreement, as opposed

15

to being limited to the relevant dates of the identified class period; (2) the revised settlement

16

agreement allocated $5,000.00 in PAGA penalties to the California Workforce Development

17

Agency (“LWDA”), despite the fact that plaintiff did not allege claims under PAGA; and (3) the

18

proposed notice form was inadequate. (Doc. No. 73 at 17–21.)

19

As described in plaintiff’s pending request for renewal of his motion for preliminary

20

approval, the parties contend that they have now corrected the deficiencies identified by the court.

21

(Doc. No. 74.) First, the parties have amended their revised settlement agreement (see Doc. Nos.

22

74 at 5–10), which now contains a release of claims clause that omits reference to violations of

23

PAGA and FLSA and releases only those claims that arose during the class period. (See id. at 7.)

24

Second, the parties’ amended revised settlement agreement also omits reference to a PAGA

25
26
27
28

The undersigned apologizes for the excessive delay in the issuance of this order. This court’s
overwhelming caseload has been well publicized and the long-standing lack of judicial resources
in this district has reached crisis proportion. Unfortunately, that situation sometimes results in the
court simply not being able to issue orders in submitted civil matters in an acceptable period of
time. This situation is frustrating to the court, which fully realizes how incredibly frustrating it is
to the parties and their counsel.
2
1

1

payment or penalties and reallocates the $5,000.00 that was previously allocated to pay PAGA

2

penalties “to the Payout Fund to be distributed to Settlement Class Members.” (Id. at 9.) Third,

3

as discussed below, plaintiff has provided the court with an amended proposed notice that

4

plaintiff contends is adequate. (Id., Ex. B.)

5

LEGAL STANDARDS

6

The court recited the relevant legal standards for preliminary approval of class action

7

settlements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in its order of September 30, 2019. (See

8

Doc. No. 73 at 4–6.) The court incorporates those legal standards by reference here and

9

throughout this order.

10
11

LEGAL ANALYSIS
A.

12

Preliminary Class Certification
The court previously granted preliminary certification of the proposed class under Rule 23

13

and found that plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality,

14

typicality, and adequacy of representation and Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority

15

requirements. (Doc. No. 73 at 6–10); see also Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d

16

718, 730 (9th Cir. 2007); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011).

17

The court will not revisit its analysis in this regard because the parties’ revised settlement

18

agreement and amended revised settlement agreement are identical with respect to class

19

certification. (See Doc. No. 74 at 5–10.)

20

B.

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

21

1.

Procedural Fairness

22

The court previously found that the parties’ negotiations constituted genuine, informed,

23

and arm’s-length bargaining. (Doc. No. 73 at 11–12.) The court will not revisit its analysis in

24

this regard and reaffirms that the settlement in this action is procedurally fair because the parties’

25

revised settlement agreement and amended revised settlement agreement are identical with

26

respect to procedural fairness. (See Doc. No. 74 at 5–10.)

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

2.

2

Substantive Fairness
a.

Adequacy of the Settlement Amount

3

The court previously concluded that the total settlement amount of $710,473.33, with

4

$490,355.00 of that amount allocated for distribution to the two subclasses under the revised

5

settlement agreement, was substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Doc. No. 73 at 12–13.)

6

In light of the parties reallocating the $5,000.00 they previously allocated to PAGA penalties to

7

the payout fund to be distributed to the class members, the amount to be paid to the two

8

subclasses has now increased to $495,355.00. (Doc. No. 74 at 9.) The court finds that this

9

amount is adequate for the same reasons that it found the prior, lesser amount to be adequate.

10

b.

Attorneys’ Fees

In its previous order, the court noted that plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee request—which is not to

11
12

exceed $177,618.33, or 25% of the total settlement amount of $710, 473.33—was within the

13

benchmark for the Ninth Circuit and approved the attorneys’ fee request on a preliminary basis.

14

(Doc. No. 72 at 15.) The court reaffirms this finding because the parties’ revised settlement

15

agreement and amended revised settlement agreement are identical with respect to attorneys’ fees.

16

(See Doc. No. 74 at 5–10.) However, the court again reminds counsel that it will carefully re-

17

examine the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and conduct a lodestar cross-check at the final

18

approval stage. The court expects plaintiff’s counsel to provide all of the requisite billing records

19

and calculations underlying plaintiff’s fee request in connection with the motion for final

20

approval.

21

c.

22

Incentive Payment

The court determined in its previous order that the proposed $7,500.00 incentive award for

23

plaintiff was reasonable and approved it on a preliminary basis. (Doc. No. 73 at 17.) The court

24

reaffirms this finding because the parties’ revised settlement agreement and amended revised

25

settlement agreement are identical with respect to plaintiff’s incentive payment. (See Doc. No. 74

26

at 5–10.)

27

/////

28

/////
4

1

d.

Release of Claims

2

In its previous order, the court expressed its concern that the release of claims in the

3

revised settlement agreement was overbroad in that it released claims for violations of PAGA and

4

FLSA despite the fact that plaintiff did not allege any claims pursuant to either act and because it

5

released claims up to the date of the revised settlement agreement, as opposed to the release being

6

limited to the relevant dates of the identified class period. (Doc. No. 73 at 18–19.) As noted, the

7

amended revised settlement agreement now contains a release of claims clause that omits

8

reference to claims for violations of PAGA and FLSA and releases only those claims that arose

9

during the class period. (Doc. No. 74 at 7.) After reviewing the release clause in the amended

10

revised settlement agreement, the court finds that the release now appropriately tracks the claims

11

at issue in this case and that the terms governing their release are consistent with applicable

12

caselaw.
For the reasons stated above and incorporated from the court’s prior order issued on

13
14

September 30, 2019, the court finds that the amended revised settlement agreement is

15

substantively fair, adequate, and reasonable.

16

C.

17

Proposed Class Notice and Administration
The court recited the relevant legal standards for determining the adequacy of a proposed

18

settlement’s notice in its order issued on September 30, 2019. (See Doc. No. 73 at 21.) The court

19

incorporates those standards by reference here.

20

The court previously found that the parties’ proposed mail delivery is appropriate, but that

21

the proposed notice form itself required amendment in three respects, all of which the parties

22

have now addressed. First, the court directed the parties to revise the class notice to reflect the

23

correct values allocated to the payout fund for the two subclasses. (Doc. No. 73 at 21).

24

Accordingly, the parties have provided a revised class notice that accurately reflects the value of

25

the payout fund to the two subclasses. (See Doc. No. 74 at 15–16.) Second, the court directed the

26

parties to clarify in the notice whether information regarding a PAGA settlement should be

27

included. (Doc. No. 73 at 21.) As noted, the amended revised settlement agreement does not

28

include any allocation of funds for PAGA penalties. Accordingly, the revised class notice omits
5

1

reference to a PAGA payment and the LWDA. (See Doc. No. 74, Ex. B.) Finally, the court

2

directed the parties to narrow the release of claims for the settlement class and revise the

3

proposed class notice in that regard. (Doc. No. 73 at 21.) As noted, the release of claims in the

4

amended revised agreement now appropriately tracks the claims presented in this action.

5

Accordingly, the revised class notice does not include claims for violations of PAGA or FLSA in

6

its recitation of the released claims. (See Doc. No. 74 at 17–18.) The court therefore now

7

approves the proposed class notice.2

8

D.

Settlement Administrator and Settlement Administration Costs
In its previous order, the court appointed ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) as the Settlement

9
10

Administrator. (Doc. No. 73 at 22.) The court confirms that appointment.

11

E.

The court approves the following implementation schedule, which is based on the parties’

12
13

Implementation Schedule

amended revised settlement agreement. (See Doc. Nos. 67-2 at 27–34; 74, Ex. B.)

14

Event

18
19

No later than thirty (30) days after receipt of
the Class List

Deadline to file any Objections, Opt-Out
Request, or Pay Period Disputes

17

No later than fourteen (14) days after entry of
Preliminary Approval Order

Deadline for ILYM to send the class notice to
each Class Member (the “Notice Mailing”)

16

Date

Deadline for defendant to provide ILYM with
a list of Class Members (“Class List”)

15

No later than thirty (30) days after the Notice
Mailing (the “Response Deadline”)

Deadline for ILYM to compile and submit to
Within ten (10) days after the close of the
the parties a report as provided in the amended Response Deadline
revised settlement agreement

20
21

Deadline for distribution of individual
settlement payments to be mailed to Class
Members

23
24

Within ten (10) days of the date of final
judgment in this action, as described in the
amended revised settlement agreement

Deadline for recipients to cash their settlement
checks

22

One-hundred-and-twenty days (120) after the
date of issuance (the “Cashing Deadline”)

25
26
2

27
28

The revised notice submitted by the parties states that the court will hold a final approval
hearing on some date in 2019. The parties are directed to revise the class notice to ensure that
dates are stated with the appropriate year. The parties need not file a further revised notice with
the court.
6

1

Within sixty (60) days after the Cashing
Deadline

3

Deadline for ILYM to distribute any
remaining funds to the cy-près beneficiaries,
as provided in the amended revised settlement
agreement.

4

Final Approval Hearing

May 4, 2021

2

CONCLUSION

5
6

For the reasons explained above:

7

1.

revised settlement agreement (Doc. Nos. 67, 74) is granted;

8
9

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for preliminary approval of the parties’ amended

2.

The proposed amended revised settlement is approved on a preliminary basis in

10

the manner detailed above and consistent with the court’s order issued on

11

September 30, 2019;

12

3.

Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

13
14

The proposed notice (Doc. No. 74, Ex. B) is approved in accordance with Federal

4.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for May 4, 2021 at

15

1:30 pm before the undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final approval

16

of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of the final

17

approval hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 230(b); and

18

5.

schedule set forth above.

19
20
21
22

The parties are directed to implement the settlement in accordance with the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 29, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
7