Titus v. Williams Tank Lines

Filing 17

AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER AND JUDGMENT signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/26/2016 APPROVING the parties' Private Attorneys General Act Settlement pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(l). CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4

MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, California 95207-8253
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
ROBERT J. WASSERMAN (SBN: 258538)
VLADIMIR J. KOZINA (SBN: 284645)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Justin Titus
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
CARY G. PALMER (SBN: 186601)
NATHAN W. AUSTIN (SBN: 219672)
HEATH A. HAVEY (SBN: 244087)
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
PATRICIA E. SIMON
Attorneys for Defendant, Williams Tank Lines

12
UNITED STATES DISTIRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

JUSTIN TITUS

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18

Case No.: 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER AND
JUDGMENTAPPROVING SETTLEMENT
UNDER LABOR CODE PRIVATE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004

WILLIAMS TANK LINES; and DOES 1100 inclusive,

19
20

Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Parties hereto, Plaintiff Justin Titus (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Williams Tank Lines
(“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1.

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant in San

Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No.: 39-2015-00328219-CU-OE-STK.
2.

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015, Defendants removed the matter to the United

States District Court, Eastern District of California, where it was assigned the case number 2:15cv-01962-TLN-EFB (“the Action”).
[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 1 of 6

1

3.

WHEREAS, on October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint

2

asserting claims pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 set

3

forth in California Labor Code §2698 et seq.

4

4.

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint

5

(“Second Amended Complaint”). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, includes the following

6

causes of PAGA and Non-PAGA Causes of Action: (1) failure to prove accurate wage statements

7

under PAGA; (2) failure to maintain accurate wage statements under PAGA; (3) failure to state

8

paid sick leave available under PAGA; and (4) retaliation under the California Fair Employment

9

and Housing Act (“FEHA” and “Non-PAGA Claim”). The PAGA Claims set forth in the Second

10

Amended Complaint are referred to herein as “the PAGA Claims.”

11
12

5.

WHEREAS, Defendant vigorously denies all of Plaintiff’s allegations, both on

factual and legal bases.

13

6.

WHEREAS, both prior and subsequent to Plaintiff filing the Action, Defendant has

14

(a) provided documents regarding its employment practices, (b) provided Plaintiff’s wage

15

statements and (c) provided, informally, additional documents and evidence to encourage the early

16

evaluation and resolution of Plaintiff’s claims.

17

7.

WHEREAS, between September 18, 2015 and November 31, 2015, the Parties

18

engaged in substantial settlement negotiations and discussions, during which they exchanged

19

information and documentation for purposes of analyzing and determining the respective merits of

20

each party’s position regarding the Action.

21

8.

WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations primarily through their

22

respective attorneys: Robert J. Wasserman, a managing partner in Mayall Hurley P.C.’s

23

employment litigation group, and Cary G. Palmer, the managing partner of Jackson Lewis P.C.’s

24

Sacramento office, both experienced employment law and PAGA practitioners.

25

9.

WHEREAS, the Parties have reached agreement on the terms of settlement

26

regarding the Action.

27

///

28
[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 2 of 6

1
2
3

10.

WHEREAS, Labor Code § 2699(l) requires that the court review and approve any

proposed settlement agreement pursuant to PAGA.
11.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel concluded, after taking into account

4

the sharply disputed factual and legal issues involved in the Action, the risks attending further

5

prosecution, the informal discovery and briefing conducted to date, and the substantial benefits

6

received and to be received pursuant to the compromise and settlement of the Action, that

7

settlement on the terms herein set forth is in the best interest of all interested parties and

8

beneficiaries.

9

12.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have balanced their evaluation of the

10

validity and strength of the asserted claims against the problems of proof, collectability, and the

11

legal standards governing the claims alleged. Based on this evaluation, Plaintiff’s counsel believes

12

that the settlement reached satisfied the public policies of PAGA and is fair to all parties and

13

beneficiaries.

14

13.

WHEREAS, Similarly, Defendant and Defendant’s counsel concluded there were

15

benefits associated with settling. Although Defendant disputes the various allegations and causes

16

of action in the Action, Defendant took into account the sharply disputed factual and legal issues

17

involved in the Action, the risk attending further defense, the expense, time, and burden of

18

protracted litigation, and the desire to put the controversy to rest, and based on these factors

19

Defendant and Defendant’s counsel agreed to this settlement without any admission of fault or

20

liability.

21

14.

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a settlement of the PAGA Claims at issue

22

in the Action (“the PAGA Settlement”) for a total payment of $13,750. Plaintiff’s individual non-

23

PAGA claims at issue in the Action are being resolved separately.

24

15.

WHEREAS, the persons covered by the PAGA Settlement will be Plaintiff and all

25

other persons employed by Defendant in California from June 25, 2014 through the date of this

26

order (“the Other Employees”). The time period covered by the PAGA Settlement will be from

27

June 25, 2014 through the date of this order (“the PAGA Timeframe”). The claims to be released

28
[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 3 of 6

1

in this PAGA Settlement include any and all claims, demands, assertions of liability, causes of

2

action, obligations, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, judgments, damages alleged in the

3

Action, including but not limited to all claims under California Labor Code sections 218.5, 226,

4

226.3, 246, 248.5, and 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”), and all claims for failure to provide accurate wage

5

statements, failure to maintain accurate wage statements, failure to state paid sick leave available,

6

penalties of any nature, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs arising out of the Action from June

7

25, 2014 through the date of this order (hereinafter “Released Claims”). The Released Parties

8

include Defendant, and its corporate parent, predecessors, heirs, owners, affiliates, officials,

9

officers, directors, attorneys, employees (current and former), shareholders, servants, agents,

10

representatives, insurers, re-insurers, and third-party administrators, together with their successors

11

and assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Released Parties”). The PAGA Settlement

12

effectively releases, precludes and bars all Released Claims against the Released Parties during the

13

PAGA Timeframe regardless of whether Plaintiff and the Other Employees actually cash their

14

settlement award checks, so long as the PAGA Settlement is administered and carried out

15

according to this order.

16

16.

WHEREAS, the Settlement sum of $13,750 for the PAGA Claims will be allocated

17

and paid pro rata by pay period actually worked during the PAGA Timeframe (defined below)

18

within 21 days of the Court’s approval and signing of the instant stipulated order, as follows:

19

a.

$3,437.50, representing 25 percent of the PAGA Settlement, will be

20

distributed by Defendant to the Other Employees, less $50.00 paid to

21

Plaintiff, who worked during the PAGA Timeframe, upon which IRS Forms

22

1099-MISC shall issue to Plaintiff and the Other Employees. All current

23

employees of Defendant will receive their pro rata share through a separate

24

settlement check apart from their regular pay. For those employees who are

25

no longer employed with or on behalf of Defendant, Defendant will send

26

their pro rata portion by mail to their last-known address. Settlement checks

27

issued to the Other Employees pursuant to this Agreement shall expire 180

28
[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 4 of 6

1

days from the date they are issued by Defendant. Any unclaimed funds after

2

the 180 days shall be remitted to the LWDA.

3

b.

$6,734.38 of the Settlement Sum shall be paid to the LWDA in accordance

4

with Section 2699(i) of the California Labor Code. This sum equals

5

$10,312.50 (75% of $13,750), which is the amount that the Parties have

6

agreed is to be paid in settlement of all Released Claims, minus attorneys’

7

fees of $2,578.12 (25 percent of the 75 percent paid to the LWDA) and costs

8

of up to $1,000.00.

9

c.

$2,578.12 will be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel, Mayall Hurley P.C. for
attorneys’ fees, plus costs of up to $1,000.00.

10
11

17.

12

PAGA Settlement.

13

The Parties jointly request that the Court approve the penalties sought as part of the

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14
15

DATED: January 26, 2016

By

/s/ Robert J. Wasserman
ROBERT J. WASSERMAN
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: January 26, 2016

By

/s/ Cary G. Palmer (as authorized on 1/26/16)
CARY G. PALMER
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant

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

[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 5 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

ORDER
Upon review of the foregoing stipulation entered into by and between the parties in the
above-referenced action, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing stipulation is hereby approved and the
Court approves the parties’ PAGA Settlement pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(l), and judgment is
hereby entered.

7
8

Dated: January 26, 2016

9
10
11

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Stipulated Order and Judgement Approving Settlement Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 – Case No. 2:15-CV-01962-TLN-EFB
Page 6 of 6