Uppal v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER and JUDGMENT by Judge Chhabria granting 39 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion for Attorney Fees.(vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIMANPREET UPPAL,

Case No. 14-cv-02629-VC

Plaintiff,
v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40

The Parties came for hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement on March 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the District Court for the Northern
District of California, the Honorable Vince Chhabria presiding. The proposed settlement in this
case was preliminarily approved by this Court on September 11, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order and the Notice provided to the Class, the Court conducted a final
fairness hearing as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court has reviewed
the materials submitted by the Parties and has heard arguments presented by counsel at the
hearing.
For the reasons cited herein, the Court hereby grants final approval of the Settlement
based upon the terms set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and the Settlement Agreement
filed by the Parties. The Settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the
Settlement Class.
1. Except as otherwise specified herein, for purposes of this Order, the Court adopts and
incorporates by reference all defined terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court finds that this Settlement satisfies the requirements for class action
settlement under Rule 23 and further finds that the Settlement Class has at all times

been adequately represented by the Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel.
3. The Notice approved by the Court was provided by First Class direct mail to the last
known address of each of the individuals identified as Class Members, after first
processing such addresses through the U.S. Postal Service change-of-address
database, as stated in the declaration of the Claims Administrator. In addition,
follow-up efforts were made to send the Notice to those individuals whose original
notices were returned as undeliverable. Efforts were also made to contact Settlement
Class Members by telephone and e-mail. The Notice adequately described all of the
relevant and necessary parts of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the request for
service payments to the Class Representative, and Class Counsel's request for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
4. The Court finds that the Notice given to the Settlement Class fully complied with
Rule 23, was the best notice practicable, satisfied all constitutional due process
concerns, and provides the Court with jurisdiction over the Settlement Class
Members.
5. The Court has concluded that the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement
executed by the Parties, is fair, reasonable, and adequate under state and federal laws,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The Court finds that
the uncertainty and delay of further litigation support the reasonableness and
adequacy of the $2,350,800 Settlement Fund established pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
6. Out of the identified Settlement Class Members who were notified, none have
objected to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, and only four have opted out of the
proposed Settlement. The reaction of the Settlement Class to the proposed settlement
strongly supports the conclusion that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
7. The Settlement is HEREBY APPROVED in its entirety and the releases encompassed

2

therein are effectuated.
8. The Settlement Fund shall be dispersed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
as detailed in the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
granted on September 11, 2015.
9. Representative Plaintiff Rimanpreet Uppal is hereby awarded $10,000 for her time
and effort in pursuing this litigation, and in recognition of the broader release she has
signed and the hardship she faced in representing the class.
10. Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $783,600 and
reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $20,494.11 is hereby granted in
part as follows. Plaintiff is awarded $587,700 in attorney's fees, in keeping with the
Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark for attorney's fees in common fund cases. See, e.g.,
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler
Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff's application for
reimbursement in the amount of $20,494.11 is granted. Further, the Court approves
payment of up to $23,290.08 for the Settlement Administrator, Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC, or, in the event that there will be a second distribution to Settlement
Class Members from unclaimed funds, if any, payment of up to $28,815.08 for the
Settlement Administrator.
11. The Court approves the cy pres recipient agreed to by the Parties: Legal Aid SocietyEmployment Law Center, whose charitable work the Court finds is sufficiently
related to the class and the underlying claims. See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d
858, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2013).
12. The Court finds and determines that payment to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency of $5,500 as its share of the settlement of civil penalties under
the Private Attorney General Act in this case is fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The
Court hereby gives final approval to and orders that the payment of that amount be
paid out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

3

13. Neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement constitutes an admission or
concession by any of the released Parties of any fault, omission, liability or
wrongdoing. This Order is not a finding of the validity or invalidity of any claims in
this action or a determination of any wrongdoing by the Defendants. The final
approval of the Settlement does not constitute any opinion, position, or determination
of this Court, one way or the other, as to the merits of the claims and defenses of
Plaintiff, Defendants, or the Class Members.
14. The Court hereby enters Judgment approving the terms of the Settlement. This
document shall constitute a final judgment with respect to the Claims of the
Settlement Class for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the Settlement Class Members are barred and permanently enjoined from initiating or
prosecuting the Released Claims as defined in the Agreement.
15. The claims of the Settlement Class Members are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, with each party to bear his, her, or its own costs, except as set forth
herein, and with this Court retaining exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, including jurisdiction regarding the disbursement of the Settlement Fund.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

4