Morazan v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. et al

Filing 88

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTION [AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT] re 72 MOTION for Final Approval of Settlement and Response to Objection filed by Martha Morazan, 59 MOTION For Service Award To Named Plaintiff Martha Morazan filed by Martha Morazan. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/15/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

David D. Sohn (SBN 221119)
[e-mail]
SOHN LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
425 California Street, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
David Borgen (SBN 099354)
[e-mail]
Laura L. Ho (SBN 173139)
[e-mail]
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

MARTHA MORAZAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

15

Case No.: 13-CV-00936-YGR
CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION

Plaintiffs,
16
vs.
17
18
19
20
21

ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER
APPAREL GROUP, INC., A California
corporation; ARAMARK UNIFORM &
CAREER APPAREL, INC., a California
corporation; ARAMARK UNIFORM
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation;
ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER
APPAREL, LLC, a California limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

[AMENDED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND OVERRULING OBJECTION [AS
MODIFIED BY THE COURT]
Date: November 12, 2013
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom No.: 5
Before: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Trial:

None Set

22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTION
495983.5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

The Court, having granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement in this
matter on June 25, 2013, directed notice of the proposed settlement to all Class Members,
considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, the Declarations of David
Borgen, David Sohn, and Jennifer M. Keough, read and considered all of the papers of the
parties and their counsel, received a single timely objection to the proposed settlement, heard
oral argument at the final approval hearing, and with GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS
HERBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1.

class members as previously ordered by the Court, described the terms of the proposed Settlement
Agreement, provided the date of the fairness hearing, the manner in which class members could
object to or participate in the settlement, and the manner in which class members could opt out of
the class. The Court finds that it was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and
complied fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), due process and all
other applicable laws. The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to
all class members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine whether the proposed
Settlement Agreement should be given final approval. Accordingly, the Court hereby determines
that all class members who did not file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the
settlement are bound by this final Order.

19
20
21

2.

24
25

Settlement or the Court’s judgment in this action.
3.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in

all respects, is not collusive, is the product of good faith, arm’s-length negotiations between the
parties, and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. Accordingly, the Court hereby
finally and unconditionally approves the Settlement Agreement, and specifically:

26
27

Attached as Exhibit A is a list of class members who submitted valid requests for

exclusion. These class members are hereby excluded from the class and are not bound by the

22
23

The Court hereby finds that the notice of settlement, which has been mailed to all

a.

Approves the Maximum Settlement Amount of $2,750,000 as fair,

reasonable, and adequate;

28
1
495983.5

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTION

1
2
3

b.

resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of that amount, or $7,500,
will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency;

4
5
6

c.

9
10

on behalf of the class and risk she assumed in bringing this action;
d.

within the Ninth Circuit, and that a 1.49 multiplier on Class Counsel’s lodestar is warranted given
the results achieved;
e.

f.

17

g.

20
21
22
23
24

the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
4.

27

The Court overrules the single objection timely filed on behalf of Mitchell

Marincovich, Ryan Compton, and Earnest Harrison, (“Objectors”). Class member Vincent Nava
filed an untimely request to join this objection, which request was denied by Defendant.
Objectors’ arguments regarding the fairness of the settlement amount, the manner in which
damages were estimated for purposes of settlement negotiations, the allegations of collusion by
class counsel, the adequacy and typicality of Plaintiff Morazan to represent the settlement class,
and the amount of requested attorneys’ fees are without merit.

25
26

Approves payment from the settlement fund of amounts determined by the

Settlement Administrator to be due to class members who did not timely opt out as specified in

18
19

Approves payment to the Garden City Group, the Claims Administrator, of

$30,000 as costs and expenses of settlement administration;

15
16

Approves Class Counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation expenses

of $10,222.83;

13
14

Approves Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee request of $687,500 as 25% of the

$2,750,000 common fund settlement amount, finding no reason to depart from the benchmark

11
12

Approves the Named Plaintiff and Class Representative Martha Morazan’s

requested service award of $5,000, which is justified by the time and effort expended by Plaintiff

7
8

Approves that $10,000 of the Maximum Settlement Amount be allocated to

5.

This Judgment and Final Order shall have a res judicata effect and bar each

Plaintiff and each class member from bringing or maintaining any action asserting any of the
“Released Claims” as the term is defined in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.

28
2
495983.5

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTION

1
2

6.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Joint Stipulation of

Settlement for one year.

3

7.

5

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

8.

4

This action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 59 and 72.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: November 15, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
495983.5

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTION

EXHIBIT A

Morazan v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc.
Case No.: 13-CV-00936-YGR

CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED VALID REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION

1. Caroline E. Eid
2. Silvia F. Olay
3. Dina C. Saenz

496020.2