2017-00217047-CU-OE

Jason Ralston vs. JMJ Incorporated

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Filed By: Rodriguez, Justin P.

Plaintiff John Ralston and Defendants JMJ Incorporated and Off Duty Officers’ unopposed joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. (Code of Civil Procedure § 382, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3rd 1117, 1138.)

Newberg on Class Actions (4th Ed.), the most authoritative treatise on class actions, discusses the process for approving the settlement of a class action. At § 11.24, “Procedure for Submitting Class Settlement for Approval,” Newberg describes the review at the preliminary stage as the submission by the parties of the essential terms of the agreement for informal review of the settlement papers by the Court. In reviewing a request for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, the Court’s task is to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the “range of reasonableness” that would warrant sending out a notice of the settlement and giving the class members the opportunity to object. (Newberg on Class Actions, 4th. Ed. (2002) § 11.25). In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) Preliminary approval by the trial court is simply a conditional finding that the settlement appears to be within the range of acceptable settlements. (See, e.g. Kullar v. Footlocker Retail Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116.) Generally, the Court will presume the absence of fraud or collusion

in the negotiation of the settlement unless evidence to the contrary is offered. In short, there is a presumption that negotiations were conducted in good faith. (Newberg, supra., at §11.51.)

The Court finds that the proposed settlement, reached after mediation, appears not to be the product of fraud or overreaching and appears to be fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the members of the putative class and thereby meets the criteria for preliminary approval. (Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.)

In this wage and hour action, Plaintiff John Ralston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated alleged, among other things, that Defendants committed numerous wage and hour violations, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to timely pay wages on termination, failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements, and failed to pay for all hours worked. Plaintiff also alleged violations of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and also sought penalties under PAGA.

According to the proposed settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay a maximum settlement amount of $1,100,000.

The settlement class includes all current or former non-exempt employees of Defendants who worked within California as a Security Guard, Security Officer, or similar position between August 8, 2013 to January 1, 2018.

Payments to class members up to the maximum settlement amount will be on a claims made, reversionary basis. There shall be a maximum pay out of 40% of the Net Settlement Amount. If less than 40% of the net settlement amount is claimed by class members, the remainder up to 40% shall be redistributed pro-rata to the participating class members.

The settlement also includes a class representative payment to Jason Ralston up to $15,000.

Simpluris, Inc. is selected as the Administrator. Administration fees of up to $17,5000 to administer the settlement are to be deducted from the gross settlement amount.

Class counsel to seek fees in an amount not to exceed 35% of the settlement amount ($350,000) and up to $10,000 in costs, all of which will be deducted from the gross settlement amount.

The settlement also provides for PAGA payment of $10,000. The class will receive 25% of this amount $2,500, while the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will receive 75% of this amount as a penalty ($7,500) in connection with the Labor Code § 2698.

The Court therefore preliminarily approves the settlement. The Court also approves the notice of settlement, provisionally certifies the class for settlement purposes, confirms Plaintiff as the class representative, and Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel.

The final approval hearing will take place on June 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in this department.

The Court will sign the proposed order preliminarily approving the class action settlement.