Baker Hughes Wage and Hour Cases

Tentative Ruling

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Baker Hughes Wage and Hour Cases
Case No: CORD4982
Hearing Date: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Approval Class Action Settlement/Provisional Certification Settlement Class/Approval of Class Notice & Notice Plan/Appointment of Class Counsel, Reps, and Claims Administrator/Setting Final Approval Hrg

Ruling: There is a proposed order that has been submitted that the Court intends to sign; the Court will request that counsel suggest dates for the: (1) Deadline for the SA to provide a due diligence declaration; (2) Deadline for Class Counsel to file for Final Approval; and (3) The hearing date for Final Approval.

Analysis

This is Plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez’ and Richard Hockison’s unopposed motion, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, for the following orders:

(1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Class Claims;

(2) Provisionally Certifying the Settlement Class;

(3) Approving the Class Notice and Notice Plan;

(4) Appointing Class Representatives and Class Counsel;

(5) Appointing the Claims Administrator; and

(6) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.

This Motion is supported by the following documents:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement;

(2) Declaration of Graham S.P. Hollis In Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Exhibits attached thereto; and the

(3) [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval

The Motion is supported by Points and Authorities and the 78-page declaration of Graham S.P. Hollis filed 2/13/20. With his declaration he includes a copy of the fully executed Joint Stipulation of Settlement (“Settlement Agreement” or “SA”). The Class Notice was attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. Notice of the Settlement and a copy of the Settlement Agreement were provided to the State of California, Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) at the same time that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed with the Court. This Court finds that counsel for Plaintiff have extensive experience in cases such as the one before this Court.

Plaintiff and proposed Class Representative Roberto Ramirez seeks preliminary approval of a non-reversionary Class Action Settlement with Defendant Baker Hughes.

Mr. Hollis testifies via declaration that Plaintiff worked as a Field Operator for Defendant from 2010 to July 30, 2017. As a Field Operator, Plaintiff drove and operated vehicles that were used in the production of oil and gas, pumped fluids, such as acid and cement, into the oil wells to stabilize the formation of the wells and to repair and clean them. Prior to attending a mediation on July 15, 2019, the parties engaged in significant informal discovery in order to investigate the claims of Plaintiff and the class members he represents. On July 15, 2019, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation before Steve Rottman, a well-respected, neutral third-party mediator well-versed and experienced in wage and hour class actions. In preparation for the mediation, Defendant produced close to 7,000 documents consisting of wage statements and time sheets for all of the Field Operators; its meal and rest period, overtime, and timekeeping policies; on-duty meal period agreements; Plaintiff’s personnel file; a class list reflecting the name, employee ID number, employment status, job title, date(s) of hire, and date(s) of termination for 153 Field Operators; and the contact information for a 50% sample, consisting of 80 Field Operators.

Mr. Hollis testifies that during mediation, the Parties engaged in good-faith, non-collusive negotiations, exchanged additional information regarding the realistic damages exposure to Defendant, the relative strength and weaknesses of the claims, the risks and delays of further litigation, the current state of the law as it related to the claims, and the potential difficulty in maintaining class certification of each of the claims. At all times the Parties’ negotiations were hard-fought and conducted at arm’s length between attorneys with substantial wage and hour class action experience and the Settlement is evidence of the Parties’ substantial efforts to reach a mutually agreeable compromise. Although the Parties were not able to come to an agreement regarding settlement during the mediation, both parties accepted a mediator’s proposal after the conclusion of the mediation.

Mr. Hollis testifies that the Parties were then able to come to an agreement regarding the essential terms of the settlement, subject to the preparation and execution of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement, which the Parties executed on or about December 11, 2019, as well as the entry of Final Approval and Judgment by the Court.

The Court finds his declaration to be credible; thorough; comprehensive.

The Court finds, based upon his testimony, that this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class. The Settlement is an excellent result, considering Defendant’s formidable arguments against liability and damages. In light of these issues, and the fact that the Settlement was the product of protracted, contentious, and arm’s-length negotiations before an experienced and neutral third-party mediator and between counsel, the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.

Thus, the Court will enter an Order (1) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement; (2) approving the form and content of the proposed Class Notice; (3) directing that Notice be given to Class Members; (4) provisionally certifying the Class, appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and Plaintiff’s Counsel as Class Counsel; (5) approving Rust Consulting Group as Settlement Administrator; and (6) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing at the earliest date permitted by the terms of the Settlement.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

One thought on “Baker Hughes Wage and Hour Cases

  1. Dustin Holmes

    I was a plane is in Ramirez versus Baker Hughes , every one I know that I worked with at Baker Hughes has received a Settlement check can you tell me why I have not?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *