Sharon H. Davis vs. Genex Holdings, Inc.

Case Name:   Sharon H. Davis vs. Genex Holdings, Inc.

Case No.:       1-13-CV-240830

 

This is a wage and hour class action brought by plaintiff Sharon Davis (“Plaintiff”) individually and on behalf of current and former “Field Case Managers” employed by defendant Genex Holdings Inc., d/b/a Genex Services (“Defendant”), which provides integrated managed care services for employer groups, insurance and managed care providers, and benefit administrators.  Plaintiff alleges that even though Field Case Managers perform skilled non-exempt clerical tasks, Defendant instituted a blanket classification policy, practice and/or procedure by which Field Case Managers were classified as exempt from overtime compensation.[1]  The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserts seven causes of action for: (1) unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203, 510, 515, 1194 and 1198; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; (5) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor Code section 203; (6) failure to pay overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 201; and (7) Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.

 

The parties have reached a settlement.  Under the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, Defendant will pay $2,700,000.00 to fund the settlement, which allocates 25% for attorney’s fees, $25,000 for litigation costs, $10,000 for a service enhancement award to Plaintiff, $15,000 to Gilardi & Co., the agreed-upon claims administrator for the settlement, and a $25,000 PAGA penalty.[2]  The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to claimants in payments based on the number of work weeks they worked during the class period.[3]  Former Employee Class Members must return a valid, signed Claim Form, while settlement class members who are current employees will be automatically paid without submitting a Claim Form.[4]  The settlement is all-in, with no reversion to Defendant.[5]

 

On January 17, 2014, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with instructions to provide supplemental briefing on the class certification requirements and the class representative award.

 

On February 14, 2014, the Court granted the continued motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and the proposed class notice forms and procedures.  The Court also conditionally certified the following settlement class:  “All current and former persons employed by GENEX in the State of California between February 6, 2009 until December 31, 2013, who held full-time positions of Case Manager-Medical (Field Case Management); Bilingual Medical Case Manager; Case Manager, Medical Telephonic Case Management; MCM Specialist; Nurse Reviewer/Telephonic Case Manager; and Onsite Telephonic Nurse Case Manager.”

 

Plaintiff now moves for final approval of the class action settlement.

 

Discussion

 

“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 previously held in the Court’s January 17, 2014 order, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness because it was reached through arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel after formal mediation and sufficient informal discovery and investigation.

 

Regarding the class notice and claims administration process, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Adrien Bizouarn of Gilardi, who states that Gilardi mailed the Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Final Hearing as well as the Settlement Claim Form (the “Notice Packet”) to the 356 names on the class list received from defense counsel, redelivered 1 Notice Packet returned with a forwarding address, and through a third party locator service, remailed 11 of the 14 Notice Packets returned with undeliverable addresses.[6]  On February 27, 2014, Gilardi established a toll-free telephone number that class members could call to request the Notice and Claim Form.[7]  Of the 356 class members, 208 are current employees who did not need to submit a claim form, and Gilardi received 80 valid claims from Former Employees.[8]  Gilardi estimates the estimated average claim value is $6,261.75.[9]  As of the April 24, 2014 opt-out postmark deadline, Gilardi received only 1 timely request and no late requests.[10]  As of the April 24, 2014 objection postmark deadline, Gilardi received no objections to the settlement.[11]

 

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed attorney fee of $675,000.00 as facially reasonable, but instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide sufficient billing records in support of a lodestar cross-check prior to final approval.  (See Lealao v. Beneficial Cal. Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 46-47.)  The “common fund” doctrine 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.)  Here, the $675,000 fee is 25% of the Net Settlement Fund, which is a reasonable percentage of the common fund that was recovered for the benefit of the Settlement Class.  The reasonableness of the fee award is also supported by Plaintiff’s concurrent motion for attorney’s fees, which establishes a lodestar of $367,702.00.[12]  A modest multiplier of less than 2 is justified by the excellent results achieved and the contingent nature of the fee.[13]  Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $10,471.66 in litigation expenses is supported by counsel’s billing records demonstrating the actual costs reasonably incurred.[14]

 

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed service enhancement payment to Plaintiff of $10,000 based on Plaintiff’s declaration.[15]  The Court finds that Plaintiff presents an adequate record supporting the $10,000.00 enhancement award.

 

The settlement also calls for payment of claims administration expenses in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00.  Here, Plaintiff provides evidence supporting Gilardi’s total costs for the administration of $15,000.00.[16]

 

The motion for final approval is GRANTED.



[1] First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 14.

[2] See Joint Stip. of Class Action Settl., Exh. 2 to Decl. Blumenthal ISO Mot. for Final Approv.

[3] Decl. Blumenthal ¶ 3(b).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Decl. Blumenthal ¶ 3(a).

[6] Decl. Adrian Bizouarn Re: Notice and Claims Admin. ¶¶ 3-6.

[7] Decl. Bizouarn ¶ 7.

[8] Decl. Bizouarn ¶ 8.

[9] Decl. Bizouarn ¶ 9.

[10] Decl. Bizouarn ¶ 10.

[11] Decl. Bizouarn ¶11.

[12] See Decl. Norman Blumenthal ISO Mot. for Atty’s Fees ¶ 6, Exh. 3 (billing records).

[13] See Decl. Blumenthal ISO Mot. for Atty’s Fees ¶ 4(c).

[14] See Decl. Blumenthal ISO Mot. for Final Approv. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.

[15] See Decl. Blumenthal ISO Mot. for Final Approv. ¶ 8, Exh. 4.

[16] Decl. Bizouarn ¶ 15, Exh. C (invoice).

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

Leave a Reply

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