2012-00125488-CU-OE
Jozette Lemmons vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Final Settlement Approval
Blumenthal, Norman B.

Plaintiff Jozette Lemmons’ unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement is tentatively granted pending the final fairness hearing. (CCP § 382, CRC,
Rule 3.769.)

The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where
substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal
litigation. (See Newberg on Class Actions 4th (4th ed. 2002) § 11.41 (and cases cited
therein); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van
Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950; see also Potter v.
Pacific Coast Lumber Co. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 592, 602.) The trial court has broad
powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. Rebney v.
Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1117, 1138. In approving a class action
settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’
of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116,
133.) 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.)

While the Court’s ruling indicates that it will give its final approval to the class action
settlement and approve class counsel’s fee requests and the class representative
service fee, the Court must still hold the final fairness hearing to allow potential class
members the opportunity to be heard. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)
Plaintiff filed the instant class action in behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals employed as Site Support Specialists (“SSSes” by Defendant Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals alleging failures to pay for the time spent “on call” or “stand by”
when not actually performing work. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for Labor Code
violations. Plaintiff also alleged Defendant violated Business and Professions Code §
17200. Finally, Plaintiff sought remedies pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act
(“PAGA”). The parties ultimately reached a settlement following mediation.

The Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement and the class notice on
November 12, 2013. Consistent with the Court’s order, notice of the settlement was
provided to approximately 163 class members. Defendant has agreed to pay a total of
$1,000,000 to establish a gross settlement amount. From that amount, attorneys’ fees
(up to 25% of the settlement), costs up to $15,000, claims administration costs of
approximately $15,000, a $10,000 service award to Plaintiff and $5,000 payment
under PAGA will be deducted to create a net settlement fund. The net settlement fund
will be distributed to settlement class members, specifically 75% of the fund will go to
the first subclass of SSSes that worked in the North Valley, Central Valley or Diablo
areas during the relevant class period and 25% of the fund will go to SSSes that
worked in other specified areas during the relevant period. Each subclass member’s
proportional share of the net settlement fund will be based on the number of weeks
worked as a percentage of the total workweeks of all members of the relevant
subclass.

Before finally approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the
settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 224, 244, 245.) “[A] presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the
settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery
are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is
experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (Dunk v.
Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) The Court considers such
factors as “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, 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, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental
participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Id. at
1801.)

Here, the Court finds that the settlement is entitled to final approval. The moving
papers demonstrate that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining
between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery which allowed the
parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement.
(Blumethal Decl. ¶¶ 6(d)-(h), 7(a)-(c).) Further, class counsel is experienced in this
type of wage and hour class action litigation, having litigated numerous wage and hour class actions. (Id. ¶ 2.) Moreover, the class reaction is overwhelmingly positive as no
objections were received and no class member opted out. (Id. ¶ 4.)

The above described settlement provides value to the class members as it provides
them with monetary compensation in a manner approximately commensurate with the
potential value of their individual claims in light of the risks of continued litigation.
Indeed, the settlement represents more than 33% of the unpaid wages at issue in this
case in the event Plaintiff could prove the claims at trial.

In addition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s separate motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Specifically, the Court approves Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $250,000 which represents 25% of the gross settlement fund. Given the
contingent nature of class counsel’s representation and the associated risks, the Court
finds this to be an appropriate fee award. The Court also approves class counsel’s
request for litigation costs in the amount of $14,120.15. In addition, the Court
tentatively approves the claims administration fees in the amount of $15,000. Finally,
the Court approves the $10,000 incentive award to Plaintiff for her time and efforts
serving as the class representative. This is an appropriate award.

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing, the Court concludes that the
settlement is entitled to final approval and that the various fee requests are appropriate
and also approved.

The Court anticipates that it will sign the proposed order of final approval and the
proposed judgment at the conclusion of the final fairness hearing in the event that it
adopts the findings set forth above which given the lack of objections to the settlement
the Court anticipates it will do.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
other notice is required.