Rodriguez v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting Final Approval of Class Settlement. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff and all Participating Class Members. The Court finds that a payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in the sum of $3,750.00 shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/29/13. (kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MONIQUE L. RODRIGUEZ, an individual
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,

13

CASE NO. 10cv2508-LAB (RBB)
ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.,a
Missouri corporation; et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
18

On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement was

19

granted by this Court, [Doc. No. 44.], Following preliminary approval, Notice of the proposed

20

Settlement was provided in the manner described in sections IV.(C)(1)-(6) of the Settlement

21

Agreement. (See Roe Decl. at ¶ 10 [Doc. No. 46].) Plaintiff now moves for final approval

22

of the Settlement in accordance with the Order Re: Preliminary Approval.

23

On May 28, 2013, the Court held a hearing concerning the final approval of the

24

settlement, as scheduled in its order of January 3, 2013. Due and adequate notice having

25

been given to the Class as required in said order, there being no objections to the Settlement

26

by any class member, and the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings

27

conducted in this action and otherwise being fully informed and good cause appearing

28

therefor,

-1-

10cv2508

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

2

Legal Standard:

3

1.

4

it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To determine whether a

5

proposed settlement meets these standards, the Court must evaluate a number of factors,

6

including:

Under Rule 23(e), the Court may approve a class settlement only upon finding that

7

a.

the strength of the plaintiff's case;

8

b.

the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;

9

c.

the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;

10

d.

the amount offered in settlement;

11

e.

the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;

12

f.

the experience and views of counsel;

13

g.

the presence of a governmental participant; and

14

h.

the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

15

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Officers

16

for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). These factors are not

17

exclusive, and in some circumstances, one factor may deserve more weight than others or

18

alone may even prove to be determinative. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688

19

F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D.

20

523, 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004). In addition, the settlement may not be the product of collusion

21

among the negotiating parties. Ficalora v. Lockheed California Co., 751 F.2d 995, 997 (9th

22

Cir. 1985); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

Analysis:

24

At the hearing on May 28, 2013, the Court discussed all these factors and for reasons

25

stated at the hearing determined the proposed settlement was fair and appropriate, and

26

should be approved.

27
28

2.

The parties have agreed to and the Court certifies the following class for the

purpose of settlement:
-2-

10cv2508

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The aggregate group of current and former employees of Enterprise
Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC who were classified as exempt
and held the job position of Branch Manager in the State of California who
supervised four or fewer employees between November 5, 2006 and the
date of entry of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement,
and all current and former employees of Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co of San
Francisco, LLC and/or Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Sacramento, LLC
(collectively with Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC
"ERAC") who were classified as exempt and held the job position of Branch
Manager in the State of California who supervised four or fewer employees
between April 15, 2008 and the date of entry of the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Class Members shall not, however,
include: (i) anyone who has received a monetary payment in exchange for
executing a release which encompasses any of the claims asserted in the
Action; (ii) anyone who has executed an arbitration agreement containing
a class action waiver; and (iii) anyone who is already represented by
counsel with respect to claims against ERAC. All persons who are included
in the Class List shall be deemed to be Class Members.

10
3.

Excluded from the settlement are those persons who have submitted valid and

11
timely requests for exclusion. Charles Peoples opted out from the settlement and is
12
excluded. Every person in the Settlement Class who did not opt out is a Participating Class
13
Member. Every person in the Settlement Class who submitted a timely and valid claim form
14
is a Qualified Class Member.
15
4.

With respect to the Participating Class Members, the Court finds and

16
concludes that: (a) the Participating Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all
17
Participating Class Members in the Action is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and
18
fact common to the Participating Class Members that predominate over any individual
19
questions; (c) the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class
20
Members; (d) Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and
21
protected the interests of the Participating Class Members; and (e) a class action is superior
22
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The
23
Court previously found that these requirements were satisfied [Doc. No. 44].
24
5.

This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff and all

25
Participating Class Members. All Participating Class Members have released Enterprise
26
Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co of San Francisco,
27
LLC, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Sacramento, LLC and Enterprise Holdings, Inc.,
28
and each of their past and present parent, subsidiary, affiliated and/or related corporations,
-3-

10cv2508

1

predecessors, successors, and assigns, including each of its and their employees, officers,

2

directors, members, shareholders, agents, representatives, consultants, attorneys, insurers

3

and divisions whether previously or hereinafter affiliated in any manner, from any and all

4

claims, damages, losses, demands, penalties, liabilities, fees, interest, causes of action,

5

complaints or suits which arise from the facts, matters, transactions, events, occurrences,

6

policies, disclosures, statements, omissions or failures to act which are, or could be the basis

7

of claims substantially and reasonably related to, the claims alleged in the Action. Released

8

Claims include, without limiting the foregoing, claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,

9

unpaid double time, rest and/or meal period payments, waiting time and other penalties,

10

liquidated damages, noncompliance with itemized employee wage statement provisions

11

under the California Labor Code, violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203,

12

218.6, 221, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1175, 1194, 1194.5, 1199, 2698, et seq., 2802,

13

the California Code of Regulations (Title 8), all similar provisions or requirements of the

14

California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and all related or corresponding

15

federal laws (with the exception of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including 29 U.S.C.

16

§216(b), and California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. (only to the

17

extent such statutory provisions, Wage Orders, or federal laws are applicable to the causes

18

of action alleged in the Action), which any Participating Class Member has, ever had, or

19

hereafter may claim to have against the Released Parties during the Class Period. The

20

Released Claims for Qualified Class Members, and only for such Qualified Class Members,

21

also include all claims, damages, losses, demands, penalties, liabilities, fees, interest,

22

causes of action, complaints or suits which arise from the facts, matters, transactions,

23

events, occurrences, policies, disclosures, statements, omissions or failures to act which are,

24

or could be the basis of claims substantially and reasonably related to claims for unpaid

25

wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid double time, rest and/or meal period payments, waiting time

26

and other penalties, and/or liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act,

27

including 29 U.S.C. §216(b), which any Qualified Class Member who qualifies to receive an

28

Individual Settlement Payment has, ever had, or hereafter may claim to have against the
-4-

10cv2508

1

Released Parties between November 5, 2006 through the Class Period. This Stipulation of

2

Settlement will release all claims that arise out of the identical factual predicate within the

3

scope of the Action arising during the Class Period.

4

6.

The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Class Members was the best

5

notice practicable under the circumstances of these proceedings and of the matters set forth

6

therein, and that the Notice fully satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure, Rule 23, due process and any other applicable laws. The Court previously found

8

that the content and method of notice is the best notice that is practicable under the

9

circumstances. [Doc. No. 44].)

10

7.

The Court finds that a payment to the California Labor & Workforce

11

Development Agency in the sum of $3,750.00 shall be paid in accordance with the terms of

12

the Stipulation of Settlement.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 29, 2013

16
17

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

10cv2508