Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 33 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Unopposed Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Juan Betancourt. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 13, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JUAN BETANCOURT,

Case No. 14-cv-01788-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ADVANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCING,
INC.,

Re: ECF No. 33

Defendant.

12

In this putative class action wage and hour employment dispute, Plaintiff Juan Betancourt

13

has filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. ECF No. 33. The Court

14

is unable to evaluate the adequacy of the settlement, however, because Plaintiff does not estimate

15

class members’ total potential recovery if they were to prevail on each of their claims at trial. See

16

N.D. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at

17

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance (“The motion for preliminary

18

approval should address . . . [t]he likely recovery per plaintiff under the terms of the settlement

19

and the potential recovery if plaintiffs were to prevail on each of their claims.”)

20

Plaintiff does state that class members attended approximately 22,310 interviews, and that

21

at an average hourly rate of $11.25, $250,988 is the approximate total of what the class could

22

obtain at trial for lost wages. ECF No. 33 at 11. Plaintiff stresses that the gross settlement amount

23

($320,000) exceeds this figure, and that the net settlement amount is 52 percent of this sum. Id.

24

But Plaintiff does not estimate the class’ total potential recovery in penalties, even though Plaintiff

25

also seeks penalties under California Labor Code section 226(e) for inaccurate wage statement and

26

section 203 for waiting time penalties. Id. at 12. Plaintiff only describes how penalties are

27
28

1

calculated under sections 226(e) and 203,1 and acknowledges that class members would not

2

automatically be entitled to such penalties if they prevail on their claims for unpaid wages. Id.
Without information about Plaintiff’s potential recovery, the Court cannot determine what

3
4

percentage of that total potential recovery the settlement represents and whether the settlement is

5

adequate. Plaintiff’s motion should detail what class members’ potential recovery would be if the

6

class prevailed on each of its claims, including its claims for penalties. Plaintiff may also provide

7

additional justification for the proposed settlement as it compares to the revised potential total

8

recovery.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing the total potential

9
10

recovery if Plaintiff was to prevail on each of his claims on or before July 31, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: July 13, 2015

13
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Section 226(e) provides that when an employer “knowingly and intentionally” violates section
226(a), any employee “suffering injury” may sue and collect actual damages or a penalty of $50 or
$100 (for subsequent violations), whichever is greater, up to a maximum of $4,000 per employee.
CAL. LAB. CODE § 226(e). Section 203 provides that when an employer “willfully fails to pay”
wages of an employee who quits or is discharged, the penalty is measured at the employee’s daily
rate of pay and is calculated by multiplying the daily wage by the number of days that the
employee was not paid, up to a maximum of 30 days. Id. § 203.
2