Guinn v. Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc.

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/1/18. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Request for Dismissal with Prejudice 112 of this action as against Sugar Transport be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

RYAN GUINN, an individual, on
behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all other persons
similarly situated,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:16-cv-00325 WBS EFB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: JOINT
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
v.
SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE
NORTHWEST, INC., a California
Corporation; BRONCO WINE
COMPANY, a California
Corporation; CLASSIC WINES, a
California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100,
Defendant.

21
22
23

----oo0oo---Plaintiff Ryan Guinn brought this matter against

24

defendants Sugar Transport of the Northwest (“Sugar Transport”),

25

Bronco Wine Company (“Bronco”), and Classic Wines of California

26

(“Classic”) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards

27

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216; the California Labor Code, Cal.

28

Lab. Code §§ 201, 203, 204, and 512; and California’s Unfair
1

1

Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

2

Before the court is a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and

3

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice submitted together by

4

plaintiff and Sugar Transport (collectively “the settling

5

parties”).

6

(Docket No. 112.)

In this court’s prior order approving settlement as to

7

defendants Bronco and Classic (Docket No. 107), this court

8

described the parties and much of the factual and procedural

9

background to the lawsuit.

Since then, the settling parties

10

mediated this action in front of the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw

11

(Retired) of JAMS and reached an agreement.

12

M. Ferrannini in Supp. of Joint Mot. (“Ferrannini Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3

13

(Docket No. 112-3).)

14

agreement on the remaining pending state court actions with the

15

other former putative class members.

16

executed a settlement agreement on or around September 27, 2018.

17

(Exhibit A, Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 112).)

18

9, 2018, the settling parties submitted a Joint Motion for

19

Approval of Settlement, in which they seek (1) the court’s

20

approval of their settlement under the FLSA and (2) dismissal of

21

Sugar Transport from this action, with prejudice.

22

(Decl. of Cassandra

Bronco and Sugar Transport also reached

(Id.

¶ 3.)

All parties

On October

“Although the Ninth Circuit has not established a

23

standard for district courts to follow when evaluating an FLSA

24

settlement, California district courts frequently apply the

25

standard established by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn’s Food

26

Stores, Inc. v. U.S. By and Through U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d

27

1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982).”

28

Corp., No. 14-cv-2778 CAB WVG, 2017 WL 697895, at *6 (S.D. Cal.

Thompson v. Costco Wholesale

2

1

Feb. 22, 2017).

2

release his claims against his employer or putative employer if

3

the parties obtain court approval of the proposed settlement and

4

if the settlement constitutes “a fair and reasonable resolution

5

of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”

29 U.S.C. §

6

216(b); Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355.

Court approval is

7

necessary to ensure an employee does not waive statutory rights

8

as a result of an employer overreaching in a non-adversarial

9

context.

10

Under that standard, plaintiff may settle and

Lynn Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1354.
“A bona fide dispute exists when there are legitimate

11

questions about the existence and extent of Defendant’s FLSA

12

liability.”

13

2018 WL 1919823, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018).

14

the parties have reached a settlement, significant disagreement

15

remains.

16

parties continue to disagree about who would prevail at trial.

17

(Ferrannini Decl. ¶ 5; Decl. of James Pagano in Supp. of Joint

18

Mot. (“Pagano Decl.”) ¶ 6.)

19

plaintiff argues that he is entitled to overtime compensation

20

(First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 18–20 (Docket No. 51)), while

21

Sugar Transport contends that plaintiff was exempt from overtime

22

compensation under the motor carrier exemption (Mot. for Summ. J.

23

at 11 (Docket No. 90–1)).

24

whether plaintiff was given a meaningful opportunity to take meal

25

and rest breaks. (Compare FAC ¶¶ 25–28 with Mot. for Summ. J. at

26

6–7.)

27

the settling parties as to the merits of plaintiff’s FLSA claims,

28

the court concludes that this settlement represents the

Seguin v. County of Tulare, No. 16-cv-1262 DAD SAB,
Here, although

Sugar Transport has not admitted any liability, and the

With respect to FLSA liability,

The parties also disagree about

Given the many substantial disputes that remain between

3

1

resolution of multiple bona fide disputes.

2

In determining whether a settlement under the FLSA is

3

fair and reasonable, this court will adopt a “totality of

4

circumstances approach that emphasizes the context of the case

5

and the unique importance of the substantive labor rights

6

involved.”

7

Supp. 3d 1164, 1173 (S.D. Cal. 2016).

8

“a fair and reasonable compromise of issues that are actually in

9

dispute may be approved to promote the efficiency of encouraging

See Selk v. Pioneers Mem’l Healthcare Dist., 159 F.
A settlement that reflects

10

settlement of litigation.”

11

00969 DAD JLT, 2018 WL 3203116, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)

12

(citations omitted).

13

fair and reasonable for several reasons.

14

Wagner v. Cty. of Inyo, No. 1:17-CV-

This court finds that this settlement is

First, both parties were represented by counsel in

15

negotiations and understood that they were reaching a compromise

16

of their dispute.

17

reflects an actual compromise -- the amount is less than what

18

plaintiff counsel believes plaintiff’s claims are worth but more

19

than Sugar Transport’s counsel’s valuation of plaintiff’s claims.

20

(Compare Pagano Decl. ¶ 4 with Ferrannini Decl. ¶ 4.)

21

will give considerable weight to both counsel’s opinions given

22

their familiarity with the litigation and their experience with

23

similar cases.

24

WHO, 2014 WL 3404531, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (doing the

25

same).

26

from suffering from additional damage if he does not prevail at

27

trial, further indicating that this settlement is a legitimate

28

compromise.

(Ferrannini Decl. ¶ 2.)

The Settlement

This court

See Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-CV-05188-

The certainty of recovery also helps prevent plaintiff

See Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1175.
4

1

Second, the settlement took place in an advanced stage

2

of the proceedings, after the settling parties had conducted

3

ample discovery relating to their claims and/or defenses.

4

(Pagano Decl. ¶ 5).

5

took thirteen depositions and exchanged a voluminous number of

6

documents that were reviewed by counsel.

7

that occurs in an advanced stage of the proceedings indicates

8

that the parties carefully investigated the claims before

9

reaching a resolution.”

10
11

In total, the parties to these proceedings

(Id.)

“A settlement

Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356, 371

(E.D. Cal. 2014).
Third, the settling parties reached an agreement

12

following participation in a multi-day JAMS mediation session in

13

front of an experienced mediator.

14

Participation in mediation supports “the conclusion that the

15

settlement process was not collusive.”

16

Cal./Colo./Fla./Or., Inc., 303 F.R.D. 337, 350 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

17

(Mueller, J.) (citation omitted).

18

parties carefully investigated their claims by considering a

19

neutral opinion in evaluating the strength of their arguments.

20

See Ontiveros, 303 F.R.D. at 371.

21

(See Ferrannini Decl. ¶ 2—3.)

Ogbuehi v. Comcast of

It also indicates that the

Given these findings, the court concludes that the

22

settlement reached is a fair and reasonable resolution of bona

23

fide disputes.

24

Dismissal with Prejudice, and the court will grant the request.

25

No party has opposed the Joint Request for

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joint Motion for

26

Approval of Settlement and Request for Dismissal with Prejudice

27

(Docket No. 112) of this action as against Sugar Transport be,

28

and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
5

1

Dated:

November 1, 2018

2
3
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
6