Berlanga et al v. Equilon Enterprises LLC et al

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 22, 2019. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2019)

1
2
3
4
5

JAY SMITH (CA Bar No. 166105)
(Email: [e-mail])
JOSHUA F. YOUNG (CA Bar No. 232995)
(Email: [e-mail])
GILBERT & SACKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10

RANDY RENICK (CA Bar No. 179652)
(Email: [e-mail])
CORNELIA DAI (CA Bar No. 207435)
(Email: [e-mail])
HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, California 91103-3645
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17

DAVID BERLANGA, BRANDON
EHRESMAN, CHARLES GAETH,
MICHAEL GONZALEZ, JOHN
LANGLITZ, and CHRISTOPHER
PALACIO, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former
employees,

Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC
CLASS ACTION
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION

18
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
21
22
23

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC dba
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, CRI U.S. LP,
CRI CATALYST COMPANY LP, and
SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY LP, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
.

DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:

January 18, 2019
9:00 a.m.
San Francisco Courthouse,
Courtroom 7, 19th Floor

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

1

ORDER

2

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action came on for hearing on January 18, 2019.

3

The Court, having considered whether to order final approval of the settlement of the above-captioned

4

action pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement”), having

5

read and considered all of the papers and argument of the parties and their counsel, having granted

6

preliminary approval on September 21, 2018, having directed that notice be given to all Class

7

Members of preliminary approval of the Settlement and the final approval hearing and the right to be

8

excluded from the Settlement, and having received no objections to the terms of the Settlement, and

9

good cause appearing,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

11

1.

12

All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set

forth in the Settlement executed by the Parties and filed with this Court.

13

2.

14

Current and former employees of any Defendant or any affiliate of a Defendant
who worked as Operators at one or more of the following facilities: (a) Shell
Pipeline Company LP’s terminal facility in Carson, California (the “Carson
Terminal facility”); (b) Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US’s oil
refinery in Martinez, California (the “Martinez Refinery”); (c) CRI Catalyst
Company LP’s catalyst production facilities in Martinez and Pittsburg, California
(“Criterion Catalyst plants”), during the period beginning January 19, 2013 and
ending September 21, 2018.

15
16
17
18

3.

The Court finds that certification of the following Class is appropriate:

The Court hereby finds that the Notice of Settlement, as mailed to all Class Members

19
on October 22, 2018, fairly and adequately described the proposed Settlement, the manner in which
20
Class Members could object to or participate in the Settlement, and the manner in which Class
21
Members could opt out of the Settlement Class; was the best notice practicable under the
22
circumstances; was valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with the
23
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all other applicable laws.
24
4.

The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to Class

25
Members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine whether the proposed Settlement
26
should be given final approval. Accordingly, the Court hereby determines that all Class Members who
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

1

did not file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement are bound by this Order of

2

Final Approval and the Judgment.

3

5.

The Court hereby finds that the Settlement, including the Settlement Amount, is fair,

4

reasonable, and adequate as to the Class, Plaintiffs and Defendants, and is the product of good faith,

5

arms-length negotiations between the Parties, and further, that the Settlement is consistent with public

6

policy, and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. The Court makes this finding based

7

on a weighing of the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses with the risk, expense,

8

complexity, and duration of further litigation.

9

6.

The Court also finds that the Settlement is the result of non-collusive arms-length

10

negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class and Defendants, after

11

thorough factual and legal investigation. In granting final approval of the Settlement, the Court has

12

considered the nature of the claims, the amounts paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement

13

proceeds among the Class Members, and the fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the

14

Parties’ respective positions rather than the result of a finding of liability after appeal. Additionally,

15

the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly

16

grant preferential treatment to any individual Class Member.

17

7.

The Court further finds that the response of the Class to the Settlement supports final

18

approval of the Settlement. Specifically, one Class Member has objected to the Settlement, and none

19

have opted out. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement

20

are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d

21

938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003).

22

8.

The Court further finds that the Objection of Kim L. Kevan fails to present any legal or

23

factual argument that the Agreement is not fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the objection

24

is overruled.

25

9.

The Court also hereby finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards and applicable

26

requirements for final approval of this class action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for the reasons

27

stated in the Motion for Final Approval.

28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

1

10.

2

Settlement.

3

11.

The Court approves the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

4

12.

The Court approves the settlement of the Released Claims as defined in the Settlement.

The Court orders the Parties to implement, and comply with, the terms of the

5

As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, as defined in the Settlement, all of the Released Claims of

6

each Class Member who did not timely opt out, as well as the Class Representatives’ Released Claims,

7

are and shall be deemed to be conclusively released as against Defendants. Except as to such rights or

8

claims that may be created by the Settlement, all Class Members as of the date of the Order of Final

9

Approval and Judgment who did not timely opt out are hereby forever barred and enjoined from

10

commencing or prosecuting any of the Released Claims, either directly, representatively or in any

11

other capacity, against Defendants.

12

13.

Class Counsel, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, shall continue

13

to serve as Class Counsel and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary to effectuate the

14

settlement, including the submission to the Court of the Claims Administrator’s final distribution

15

report, as well as all papers necessary to allow this court to evaluate the claims process and order

16

distribution of the settlement fund to class members.

17

14.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,937,500. The

18

forgoing award is 25% of the settlement fund of $7,750,000. Plaintiff’s Counsel is further awarded

19

reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses necessarily incurred in order to advance the litigation

20

for the benefit the class in this matter in the amount of $19,971.25. These awards shall be paid from

21

the Settlement Fund.

22

15.

In determining an award of attorney’s fees where the class action settlement establishes

23

a common fund for the benefit of the class out of which the attorney’s fee is awarded, courts have

24

adopted the percentage of fee calculation. Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat., Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480, 493-

25

94 (2016). The Court finds that a fee award at the Ninth Circuit 25% of the fund benchmark is

26

reasonable in light of the factors to be considered, including: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risk of

27

litigation; (3) the skill required; (4) the quality of work performed; (5) the contingent nature of the fee

28

and the financial burden; and (6) the awards made in similar cases. See Barbosa v. Cargill Meat
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

1

Solutions Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431, 449 (E.D. Cal. 2013)(citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d

2

1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

16.

In addition, the Court finds the fee award reasonable under the lodestar cross-check

4

method. Laffitte, 1 Cal. 5th at. at 506; Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1043. In so finding, the Court has

5

considered a variety of factors, including “the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity

6

of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented.” Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc.,

7

82 Cal. App. 4th 19, 26 (2000); see Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998).

8

17.

The Class Representatives are each awarded an incentive, as follows: (1) Christopher

9

Palacio is awarded $7500; (2) David Berlanga is awarded $6000; and (3) Brandon Ehresman, Charles

10

Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, and John Langlitz are each awarded $5000. These payments shall be made

11

from the Settlement Fund and are in addition to the Class Representatives' respective shares as Class

12

Members.

13

18.

14

Plaintiffs shall also set aside $35,587.82 from the Settlement Fund to be paid to the court-

appointed Claims Administrator, CAC Services Group, LLC.

15

19.

The Court allocates fifty thousand ($50,000) of the Settlement Fund to penalties under

16

the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), with seventy-five percent (75%) of the PAGA penalties

17

thirty-seven thousand five hundred ($37,500) to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce

18

Development Agency (“LWDA”) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the PAGA penalties twelve

19

thousand five hundred ($12,500) being paid to Settlement Class Members who do not opt out.

20

20.

Defendants shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees,

21

or for any other charge, expense, or liability, in connection with the above-captioned action except as

22

provided in the Settlement.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

1

21.

Without affecting the finality of the Order of Final Approval or the Judgment, the Court

2

retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action, Plaintiffs, all Class Members and

3

Defendants for purposes of supervising, implementing, interpreting and enforcing the Order of Final

4

Approval and Judgment and the Settlement. Nothing in the Order of Final Approval or Judgment

5

precludes any action to enforce the Parties’ obligations under the Settlement or under this Order of

6

Final Approval.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: January 22, 2019

_

_________
HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY
HONOR
NORABLE MAXINE
X
CHESN
HESN
HE
United States District Judge
United
ted
te

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC