Guzman-Padilla, et al. v. Van de Pol, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/13/17 GRANTING Plaintiffs' MOTION for Approval of Service Awards 39 . The Court awards service payments of $500 to each of the four Named Plaintiffs, for a total service payment award of $2,000. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
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

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850)
EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)
MEREDITH A. JOHNSON (SBN 291018)
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
DAWSON MORTON (SBN 802667, Registered Legal Services
Attorney)
R. ERANDI ZAMORA (SBN 281929)
ALEXANDRA REVELAS (SBN 305201)
2210 K Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for individuals HERNAN GUZMANPADILLA, CIPRIANO BENITEZ, CARLOS FABIAN
TORRES PEREZ, and GUILLERMO BENITEZ
SANTOYO and the Employee and Housing Classes
[Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs listed on next page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:17-cv-00196-JAM-KJN
HERNAN GUZMAN-PADILLA,
CIPRIANO BENITEZ, CARLOS
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
FABIAN TORRES PEREZ, and
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
GUILLERMO BENITEZ SANTOYO
SERVICE AWARDS
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GERARD VAN DE POL; HENRY VAN
DE POL; AND GERARD VAN DE POL
AND HENRY VAN DE POL d/b/a/ G&H
DAIRY

Date: October 12, 2017
Time: 10:00 am
Judge: Hon. Magistrate Judge Newman
Courtroom 25, 8th Floor

Defendant.

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS;
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00196-KJN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
ROBERT J. WASSERMAN, Bar No. 258538
WILLIAM J. GORHAM, Bar No. 151773
NICHOLAS J. SCARDIGLI, Bar No. 249947
VLADIMIR J. KOZINA, Bar No. 284645
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, California 95207-8253
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for individuals HERNAN GUZMANPADILLA, CIPRIANO BENITEZ, CARLOS FABIAN
TORRES PEREZ, and GUILLERMO BENITEZ
SANTOYO and the Employee and Housing Classes

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS;
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00196-KJN

1

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Service Payments came on for hearing before this

2

Court on October 12, 2017. Having considered the arguments and evidence, and for the reasons

3

that follow, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and awards class representative

4

service payments of $500 to each of the four Named Plaintiffs (Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Cipriano

5

Benitez, Carlos Fabian Torres Perez, And Guillermo Benitez Santoyo), for a total of $2,000, as is

6

authorized under the terms of the [Proposed] Consent Decree. (Dkt. 28-5 at 16).

7

In the Ninth Circuit, it is typical to award a service payment to class representatives for their

8

work as “private attorn[ies] general” in helping to prosecute a class action for the collective benefit

9

of the class. Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009). In determining

10

whether class representatives are entitled to reasonable service awards, courts consider all “relevant

11

factors includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to

12

which the class has benefitted from those actions, . . . the amount of time and effort the plaintiff

13

expended in pursuing the litigation . . . and reasonabl[e] fear[s of] workplace retaliation.” Staton v.

14

Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

15

Here, each of these factors weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion. First, each of

16

the four Named Plaintiffs took significant actions to protect the interests of the classes they

17

represented, from which the class members benefitted as a whole. As detailed in the declarations

18

submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, each Named Plaintiff spent numerous hours assisting

19

in the prosecution and eventual settlement of this case, maintaining close contact with Class

20

Counsel and providing valuable factual information and insight. Specifically, each Named

21

Plaintiff participated actively in this litigation by, among other things, speaking with counsel in their

22

initial investigation of potential claims, reviewing the draft complaint allegations, searching for and

23

gathering documents, communicating with class members, participating in mediation strategy

24

discussions, and reviewing proposed settlement terms. Named Plaintiffs’ efforts resulted in a

25

[Proposed] Consent Decree that affords substantial monetary and injunctive relief.

26

For all these reasons, the Court finds that class representative service payments are justified

27

in this action and that the amounts requested are reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly,

28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS;
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00196-KJN

1
2
3
4

the Court awards service payments of $500 to each of the four Named Plaintiffs, for a total
service payment award of $2,000.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS;
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00196-KJN