Case No.: 1-09-CV-150264

This is a class action for wage and meal period violations by plaintiff Michael Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of himself and others currently and formerly employed as a Respiratory Therapists (“RT”) by defendants Samaritan, LLC, Good Samaritan Hospital, LLC, Good Samaritan Hospital, LP, and HCA, Inc. (“Defendants”). The action was original filed on August 19, 2009. The operative Third Amended Complaint asserts five causes of action for: (1) failure to provide mandated meal periods; failure to compensate for denied meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001); (2) overtime violations (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001); (3) waiting time penalties (Lab. Code, §§ 201-203, 208); (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (5) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).

On August 19, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ alternative motion for summary adjudication, in part, as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for waiting time penalties.

On January 16, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

On January 2, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Under the settlement, which resulted from formal mediation with the Honorable William J. Cahill (Ret.), Good Samaritan will pay $600,000 to settle the remaining claims. The settlement calls for attorney’s fees and costs not to exceed 33% or $200,000 of the gross settlement, $5,000 to Plaintiff as a class representative payment, and payment of claims administration fees of $6,500. The Court also approved the method of class notice by First-Class mail.

Plaintiff now moves for final approval of the settlement. According to the final approval papers, class notices were mailed out by the third party claims administrator CPT Group on January 30, 2014, and as of March 18, 2014, 88.58% of the settlement funds were claimed by 60 of the 75 class members, and none of the class members submitted opt-out forms or objections to the settlement.

On a motion for preliminary approval, “[t]he judge must make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms and must direct the preparation of notice of the certification, proposed settlement, and date of the final fairness hearing.” (Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (2004) § 21.632.) “[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.)

The Court once again finds the settlement is entitled to a preliminary presumption of fairness because it was reached through arms-length bargaining after formal mediation, extensive discovery and significant motion practice, counsel is experienced in similar litigation, and there were no objectors or opt-outs. On a motion for final approval, the Court must also consider the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.) Plaintiff submits that class members will receive approximately $7.40 for each shift that they worked in the class period, with an average of approximately $4,800 per class member, and Defendant made improvements to their meal break policies after the lawsuit was filed to help ensure that missed meal periods are more accurately tracked and compensated going forward. Plaintiff argues these benefits are substantial, especially in light of the risks of further litigation, particularly having to prove that meal breaks were actually interrupted by pages and/or that Defendant took actions to impede or discourage RTs from taking meal breaks. The Court find that the settlement is reasonable when balanced against the merits and risks of further litigation.

The Court also approves of the $200,000 in proposed attorney’s fees. This is one third of the total settlement amount, which is not an uncommon contingency fee allocation. 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.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel submits billing records for a lodestar cross-check, showing a total lodestar of $587,632.10, which far exceeds the requested fee award. Plaintiff’s counsel also requests $17,292 in reimbursement for litigation costs, and this request is supported by detailed cost summaries showing the amounts actually incurred. The Court approves the cost request.

The Court also finds that the $5,000 class representative award is reasonable. Plaintiff previously submitted a declaration regarding the time and expense he has incurred in pursuit of the lawsuit. The request is further supported by the Declaration of Jonathan Siegel, who discusses the significant contribution Plaintiff made to the case.

The Court is inclined grant the motion but will take it under submission pending submission of supplemental papers. The Stipulation and Proposed Settlement calls for claims administration costs to be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund, and on preliminary approval, these costs were estimated to be $6,500.00, but the final approval papers do not mention CPT Group’s actual fees incurred. Within three days of this Order, Plaintiff should submit evidence supporting CPT Group’s final administration costs, as well as a proposed final approval order and proposed final judgment.