This is a putative class action for violation of labor laws governing minimum and overtime wages, meal periods and wage statements. The operative Class Action Complaint was filed by plaintiff Marco Martinez (“Plaintiff”) individually and on behalf of all current and former employees of defendants John Morrell & Co. and/or Mohawk Packaging Company (“Defendants”) who were employed at Defendants’ Mohawk Packaging Company San Jose facility as non-exempt hourly paid employees in the period commencing four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants underpays employees at its Mohawk Packaging Company facility by not paying for the time employees are required to put on health, safety and protective gear, and at the end of a shift, Defendants’ payroll system truncates employee time that is past the scheduled shift and time. Plaintiff also alleges that employees lose 10 minutes of compensable time at lunchtime while they remove and don protective gear. When employees are discharged or resign, Defendants do not pay those employees all of their final wages within the times specified by law, and wage statements understate the earned wages. The CAC, filed April 7, 2011, asserts six causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wage (Lab. Code, § 1194 and Min. Wage Order); (2) failure to pay overtime compensation (Lab. Code, §§ 1194, 1198); (3) failure to provide meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Lab. Code, § 226); (5) failure to timely pay wages upon termination (Lab. Code, § 203); and (6) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).

On December 13, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, attorney’s fees and costs to Class Counsel, enhancement award to Plaintiff, and conditional certification of a settlement class that consists of “[a]ll current and formerly employed persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly paid employee at Defendant’s facility in San Jose, California at any time between April 7, 2007 and the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement.” The Court also approved the method of class notice through Dahl Administration (“Dahl”).

Under the terms of the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, Defendants shall pay up to the Gross Settlement Amount of $350,000, which includes costs of settlement administration ($7,500), attorney’s fees to Class Counsel (not to exceed $113,750 or 32.5% of the Gross Settlement Amount), litigation costs (not to exceed $10,000), enhancement award to Plaintiff (not to exceed $5,000), a payment to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency of $1,500 for PAGA penalties, and Defendant’s share of payroll taxes with respect to settlement payments. The Net Settlement Amount of approximately $210,000 will be paid to Settlement Class Members who submit claims.

Discussion

Plaintiff now moves for final approval of the class action settlement, $113,750 in attorney’s fees, $9,847.78 in costs, $5,000 as a class enhancement payment, and $5,101 in settlement administration fees to Dahl.

“The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include ‘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 the class members to the proposed settlement.’ [Citations.] This list ‘is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.’ [Citation.]” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128.) “[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. [Citation.]” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)

As discussed in the preliminary approval papers, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness. The parties engaged in private mediation in April of 2012, further informal negotiations, and conducted formal discovery, including Plaintiff’s deposition and written discovery and document production. Plaintiff’s attorneys are experienced in similar litigation. Regarding the percentage of objectors, according to Dahl’s principal, Heather Wahl, the Notice Packets were mailed to 435 Class Members (with 37 of the 38 returned Notice Packets re-mailed to an updated address), and as of the postmark exclusion deadline, Dahl has received three timely requests for exclusion (Leslie Peterson, Thomas J. Alpers, Jr., and Daniel J. Rosa), one untimely request for exclusion (Johnny B. Lee), and two objections (Laura A. Conrady and Candelario Lemus) that were filed with the Court. Thus, the percentage of objectors among the total Class is very small.

The $113,750 attorney’s fee award represents 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount of $350,000, which is a common contingency fee percentage. This award is reasonable under the “common fund” doctrine, which allows a party recovering a fund for the benefit of others to recover attorney’s fees from the fund itself. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Sweet (1995) 12 Cal.4th 105, 110-111.) As a further test of reasonableness, the Court instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide billing records for a lodestar cross-check prior to final approval. (See Lealao v. Beneficial Cal. Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 46-47.) Plaintiff’s counsel, Gregory N. Karasik, provides a declaration stating that he spent at least 125 hours on the case at an hourly rate of $740, resulting in a lodestar of $92,500. Mr. Karasik submits that under the Laffey Matrix, his hourly rate is substantially less than the rate for similarly experienced attorneys. The Court accepts the lodestar and finds the fee award is not greatly disproportionate to the actual lodestar, supporting the reasonableness of the award. Regarding costs, Mr. Karasik submits copies of expense records reflecting the costs incurred by the respective law firms representing Plaintiff and the Class in the total amount of $9,847.78. The Court finds that the attorney’s fee and cost awards are reasonable and supported by sufficient evidence.

Regarding the $5,000 enhancement award to Plaintiff, Plaintiff submits his declaration in which he discusses the good results obtained by the litigation, including the $1,278 average amount of gross settlement benefits to be received by Class Members who submit claims, and the risks he took in bringing the case, including the financial burden of a judgment against him and the threat of being “blacklisted” for suing an employer. Plaintiff also states, “From the inception of this case in April 2011, I have been in contact with my lawyers on a regular basis and have assisted them with the prosecution of this lawsuit in every way they asked. I communicated with my lawyers on numerous occasions, assisted them with their investigation and responding to discovery, had my deposition taken, and attended the mediation in April 2012. . . . I estimate that, to date, I have spent approximately 20 hours helping my lawyers in this case.” Taking into account the risks to commencing suit and the time spent assisting in the case, the Court finds that Plaintiff adequately supports the reasonableness of a $5,000 enhancement payment.

Regarding settlement administration costs, Ms. Wahl verifies in her declaration that Dahl’s total fees and expenses for this settlement will be $5,101. This covers all claims administration services performed to date and those remaining, including distribution of payments and tax reporting.

Finally, the written objections by Class Members do not raise any basis for denying final approval to the settlement and are accordingly OVERRULED.

The motion for final approval is GRANTED.