Bui v. Sprint Corporation, et al

Filing 73

FINAL ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/19/2016 GRANTING Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and GRANTING Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Attorney Fees. CASE CLOSED. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

VIET BUI and CHRISTINA AVALOSREYES, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, and on
behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:14-CV-02461-TLN-AC

FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT

v.
SPRINT CORPORATION, a SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
a Delaware Corporation;
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO.,
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

19
Defendant.
20
21
22

On June 16, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing regarding final approval of the

23

settlement and release of claims in this matter, Plaintiff’s application for approval of attorney’s

24

fees and costs, class representative payments to class representatives Viet Bui and Christina

25

Avalos-Reyes, and the settlement administration expenses. The parties appeared by and through

26

their respective counsel of record. After considering the moving papers and arguments of counsel,

27

and good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of

28

class action settlement (ECF No. 71) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for award of

1
2
3

attorney’s fees and costs, class representative enhancement payments, and settlement
administration expenses (ECF Nos. 64–70) , as follows:
1. The Court has received and considered the proposed Joint Stipulation and Settlement

4

Agreement (hereinafter the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into by the Plaintiffs, Viet

5

Bui and Christina Avalos-Reyes (“Plaintiffs”), and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and

6

Defendants Sprint/United Management Company and Sprint Communications Company

7

L.P. (erroneously sued as “Sprint Corporation, a Sprint Communications Company,

8

L.P.”) (“Defendant”).

9

2. The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the class settlement that provided

10

for conditional class certification. (ECF No. 60.) The Court has been informed by

11

declarations that notice of the settlement has been provided to the Class (as defined

12

below); has held a fairness hearing at which all parties were represented by their

13

respective Counsel and at which the Class Members were afforded the opportunity to

14

object to the proposed settlement; has received and reviewed briefing and evidence as to

15

why the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the represented

16

class; and has considered all other arguments and submissions in connection with the

17

proposed settlement.

18
19
20
21
22

3. Solely for the purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Court hereby certifies the
Settlement Class, defined as all persons who are or who have been employed by Sprint as
a non-exempt employee in one of Sprint’s California retail stores during the Class Period
as a Store Host, Retail Consultant, Bilingual Retail Consultant, Lead Retail Consultant,
Bilingual Lead Retail Consultant, Assistant Store Manager, Bilingual Assistant Store
Manager, and/or Manager Retail Store (C) (the “Settlement Class”), except for any

23
person who is a named plaintiff or who has filed a consent to join in the collective action
24
25
26
27
28

conditionally certified in the action entitled Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp and
Sprint/United Management Co., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04357-VC (N.D. Cal.).

For the

reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds that the Settlement
Class meets the legal requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil

1
2
3

Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”).
4. In accordance with Rule 23 and the requirements of due process, the Settlement Class has
been given proper and adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement and the Final

4

Fairness Hearing, such notice having been carried out in accordance with the Preliminary

5

Approval Order.

6

Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order were (a) appropriate

7

and reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled

8

to notice; and (b) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

9

and any other applicable law. The parties have complied fully with the notice provisions

10

The Notice and notice methodology implemented pursuant to the

of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

11

5. The Court hereby approves the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and

12

finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable and is hereby

13

approved in all respects. The Court makes this finding based on a weighing of the

14

strength of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses with the risk, expense,

15

complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court also finds that the Settlement is

16
17
18
19
20

the result of non-collusive arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel
representing the interests of the Settlement Class and Defendant, after thorough factual
and legal investigation.

In granting final approval of the Settlement, the Court

considered the nature of the claims, the amounts and kinds of benefits paid in settlement,
the allocation of settlement proceeds among the Class Members, and the fact that the
Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties’ respective positions rather than the

21
result of a finding of liability at trial. Additionally, the Court finds that the terms of the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly grant preferential
treatment to any individual Class Member. The Court further finds that the response of
the Class to the Settlement supports final approval of the Settlement. Specifically, no
Class Member objects to the Settlement. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court
finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
to each Class Member. The Court also hereby finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the

1

standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action settlement

2

under Rule 23.

3

6. The Motion for Final Approval is GRANTED, and the Settlement Agreement hereby is

4

APPROVED as fair, reasonable, adequate to members of the Settlement Class, and in the

5

public interest. The parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in

6

accordance with its terms.

7

7. The Court hereby grants class counsel’s request for an award of attorney’s fees in the

8

amount of $1,616,505 and litigation costs in the amount of $13,144.38 in accordance

9

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

10

8. The Court approves a Class Representative Enhancement Award of $15,000 to Class

11

Representative Viet Bui and a Class Representative Enhancement Award of $5,000 to

12

Class Representative Christina Avalos-Reyes in accordance with the terms of the

13

Settlement Agreement.
9. The Court approves a $3,750 payment to the California Labor and Workforce

14

Development Agency in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

15

10. The Court approves the payment of settlement administration expenses to Class

16

Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000 in accordance

17

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

18

11. The Court hereby enters judgment approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement and

19

ordering that the Lawsuit be dismissed on the merits with prejudice in accordance with

20

the Settlement. The Seconded Amended Complaint is dismissed on the merits with
21
prejudice on a class-wide basis. This document shall constitute a final judgment for
22
purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 58.
23

12. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this

24

action for the purpose of resolving any disputes that may arise as to the implementation

25

of the monetary relief terms of the Settlement Agreement.

26
27

///

28

///

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: July 19, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge