Alkady v. First Transit, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 61 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 12/31/2019. (jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW ALKADY,

Case No.: 16-cv2291-L-BGS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17

In this putative class action alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of non-

18

exempt fixed-route bus drivers at Defendant's Orange County Transportation Authority

19

locations in Santa Ana and Irvine, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary

20

approval of class action settlement. The motion is denied without prejudice for the

21

following reasons:

22

1.

Although the operative complaint (doc. no. 9) alleges a number of wage and

23

hour violations, Plaintiff sought to certify a class only with respect to the alleged rest

24

break violations and derivative claims for failure to provide accurate wage statements,

25

failure to timely pay wages upon termination, unfair competition and claims for penalties

26

under Labor Code California Private Attorney General Act. (Doc. no. 43 at 7-8, 16-17;

27

doc. no. 61-1 at 10, 14.) The scope of the proposed settlement is the same. (See doc. no.

28

61-1 at 10.) Nevertheless, the class proposed in Plaintiff's motion for class certification
1
16-cv2291-L-BGS

1

(doc. no. 43 at 16-17) differs significantly from the definition in the proposed settlement

2

(doc. no. 61-3 ("Settlement") § I(d)). Unlike the class certification motion, the motion to

3

approve settlement proposes a class which subsumes the wage statement and waiting time

4

subclasses. The failure to create a waiting time subclass for settlement purposes is

5

troubling. The claim for waiting time penalties, i.e., claim for failure to timely pay all

6

compensation due upon separation from employment, is unique to former employees.

7

See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203. The proposed settlement, although purporting to settle

8

the waiting time claim, does not appear to provide any relief specific to former

9

employees. Furthermore, no information is provided to determine whether Plaintiff is a

10

former employee, so as to be able to adequately and fairly represent the interests of the

11

former employees. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a)(3),(4); see also id. (e)(2)(A), (D).

12

2.

The release provision includes class members' claim for waiting time

13

penalties; however, the settlement provides no relief for this claim. (See Settlement §

14

I(c)(3)). Although a settlement does not necessarily have to provide relief for all the

15

released claims, the Court is not inclined to approve the settlement without an adequate

16

explanation why no relief is provided. Finally, subsections (2) and (3) of the Released

17

Claims should include the same limiting language as subsection (4) to specify that they

18

are released only insofar as they relate to the alleged rest break violations. (See id. §

19

I(c).)

20

3.

The Settlement provides for "California Rural Legal Assistance" as the cy

21

pres recipient. Neither the settlement (Settlement §§ 4.06, 4.11(g)) nor the motion (doc.

22

no. 61-1 at 11) specifies whether reference is to California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. or

23

the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Either organization lacks the close

24

nexus required to ensure that the class members would ultimately benefit from the award.

25

See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012). "Not just any worthy

26

recipient can qualify as an appropriate cy pres beneficiary." Id. What is required is

27

assurance that the funds will be "distributed in accordance with the goals of the remedy"

28

/////
2
16-cv2291-L-BGS

1

and that class members will in fact benefit. Id. (discussing and quoting Six Mexican

2

Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1309 (9th Cir. 1990)).

3

4.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5) provides that "[a]ny class member

4

may object" to the proposed settlement and does not require written objections. Although

5

the parties may encourage class members to provide written objections by a date certain,

6

the Court is not inclined to approve a settlement or notice of settlement suggesting that a

7

class member who does not timely file written objections is barred from objecting. (See

8

Settlement § 4.09(d); doc. no. 61-3 at 47 et seq.)

9

5.

The Court will not approve any settlement appointing the Settlement

10

Administrator as a "final arbiter" of any class member substantive rights, for example, a

11

dispute over the number of work weeks used to calculate a class member's distribution

12

from the settlement. (See, e.g., Settlement § 4.09(b).)

13

6.

The proposed settlement notice is confusing and verbose. (See doc. no. 61-3

14

at 47 et seq.) The notice should be complete, clear, concise and user-friendly, especially

15

in the areas where a class member may be required to make a decision or take action,

16

such as, disputing the proposed claim calculation, ir excluding oneself from or objecting

17

to the settlement. For an example of a settlement notice approved by this Court in a

18

similar context, the parties may refer to Crane v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. S. Dist.

19

Cal. case no.3:17-cv-455-L-WVG doc. 39.

20

7.

Insufficient information is provided for the Court to determine whether

21

ILYM, Inc. is qualified to serve as the Settlement Administrator.

22

/////

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv2291-L-BGS

1
2

8.

Plaintiff has not indicated whether any responses have been received to the

3

notices of settlement pursuant to the Labor Code California Private Attorney General Act

4

or the Class Action Fairness Act.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 31, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-cv2291-L-BGS