Rodriguez v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 48 and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 35 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/3/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO DIVISION

11
12

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01137-LJO-EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT

KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC., a Virginia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (Docs. 35 and 48)
Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 1:14-CV-01137-LJO-GSA

1
2
3
4
5

On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, initiated this class action in the Fresno County Superior Court alleging
various wage and hour violations against Defendant, Kraft Foods. On July 18, 2014, Defendant
removed this case to this Court claiming federal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 § 1332(d),
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). (Doc. 1, pg. 2).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

On November 4, 2015 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class
Action Settlement. (Doc. 35). On November 25, 2015, Defendant filed a non-opposition to the
motion. (Doc. 37). On December 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean held a hearing on
Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement. Following the hearing, the Court ordered supplemental briefing. (Docs. 40, 42-46),
and on February 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
recommending that the Motion for Preliminary Approval be granted with some modifications.
(Doc. 35). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all of the parties with
instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. The parties have filed a
joint statement of non-opposition. (Doc. 49).

16
17
18
19
20
21

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations dated February 8, 2016
(Doc. 48), are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
is GRANTED, subject to the following findings and orders:

22
23
24

2.

The Settlement 1 falls within the range of reasonableness and appears to be

presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be raised at the final fairness hearing and
final approval by this Court.

25
26
27
28

1

The Settlement comprises the terms as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release filed on November 4,
2015 (Doc. 35-2) and the modifications made to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action (Doc. 46-1) as outlined in
this order.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

3.

A final fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed Settlement,

attorneys’ fees, costs to class counsel, and the class representative service payment/award should
be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, will be held in accordance with the
schedule set forth below.
4.

The Court approves the form and content of the Notice of Pendency of Class

Action (“Notice”) filed on January 25, 2016 (Doc. 46-1), with the following modifications:
a. The first paragraph in Section 5 shall be amended to indicate that District Court Judge
Lawrence J. O’Neill, rather than Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, preliminary approved the
settlement (Doc. 46-1, pg. 3); and
b. The second paragraph in Section 8, which explains the PAGA claims, shall be deleted
and the following language inserted (all other paragraphs in that section shall remain as written) :

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

If you timely request to be excluded from the settlement, you will not be bound by
anything that happens in this lawsuit and will not receive payment under the Settlement.
Except, if the Settlement is approved, the Settlement will bar further claims brought
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code § 2399 et seq,
which allows aggrieved employees to bring civil actions to recover penalties for
violations of the Labor Code. An action under PAGA is an enforcement action, in which
an aggrieved employee acts as a private attorney general to collect penalties from
employers who violate labor laws. The employees who file the actions may collect
monetary penalties. The penalties collected would be distributed as follows: 50% to the
General Fund, 25% to the agency for education, and 25% to the aggrieved employee. A
plaintiff may recover civil penalties under this statue without satisfying class action
certification requirements. See, Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 969. Therefore,
you will receive a payment from Kraft Heinz for the amount of your individual share of
the PAGA claim even if you ask to be excluded from the class.
5.

This Court approves the procedures for class members to participate in, to opt-out

23

of, and to object to the settlement, as set forth in the Settlement (Doc. 35-2) incorporating the

24

changes made in the Revised Notice (Doc., 46-1), with the above modifications.

25

6.

This Court directs the mailing of the Notice by first class mail to the class

26

members in accordance with the schedule set forth below. The dates selected for the mailing and

27

distribution of the Notice meet the requirements of due process, provide the best notice

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to class
members.
7.

The class is certified for settlement purposes only.

8.

The Court appoints Jose Rodriguez as class representative, and R. Duane Westrup

of Westrup &Associates, as class counsel for settlement purposes only.
9.

This Court appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the claims administrator.

10.

The following dates shall govern for purposes of this Settlement:

8
9
10

Deadline for Defendant to Submit
a
a.

11

b.

20

23

e.

Objections to Settlement

approval hearing]

[60 calendar days after mailing of the

Postmark Opt-Out Requests

Notice to Class Members]

[45 court days before the Final

Motion for Final Approval of

Approval Hearing]

Settlement and for Attorneys’ Fees,
Costs, and the Class Representative

25

Service Payment

26

28

[30 calendar days prior the final

Deadline for Class Counsel to file
f

d.

24

27

granting Preliminary Approval]

Deadline for Class Members to
d

c.

21
22

to Mail the Notice to Class

Deadline for Receipt of any
c

18
19

[Within 15 calendar days after Order

Members

15

17

granting Preliminary Approval]

Deadline for Claims Administrator
b

14

16

Class Member Information to
Claims Administrator

12
13

[Within 25 calendar days after Order

Deadline for Parties to File
h
f.

[16 court days before Final Approval

Declaration from Claims

Hearing]
3

1

Administrator of Due Diligence

2

and Proof of Mailing

3
4

Final Fairness Hearing
i

July 8, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in

g.

Courtroom 10 before Magistrate

5

Judge Erica P. Grosjean

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Deadline for Claims Administrator
j
h.

[No later than 10 calendar days after

to mail the Settlement Awards,

the final settlement approval date]

Service Payments, and to wire/
transfer the Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs if the settlement is approved.

The Court expressly reserves the right to continue or adjourn the final approval hearing
without further notice to the class members.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: March 3, 2016
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4