2016-00203789-CU-OE

Samuel Guerra vs. Graphic Packaging International, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Filed By: Aiwazian, Edwin

Plaintiffs Samuel Guerra, Vince Zasonski, Mario Colvin and Matthew Hernandez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, and Defendant Graphic Packaging International, Inc. (“Defendant”), unopposed joint Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. (Code of Civil Procedure § 382, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

The instant coordinated case involves three separate actions: Colvin v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 2015-00781730-CU-OE-CXC filed on April 8, 2015 (the “Colvin Action”), Zasonski v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015-

00180987, filed on June 25, 2015 (the “Zasonski Action”), and Guerra, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-20196-00203789-CU-OE-GDS, filed on November 22, 2016 (the “Guerra Action” or the “Instant Action”) (collectively the “Actions”). In the Actions, Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals employed by Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from April 8, 2011 to final judgment.

Plaintiffs also seek to provisionally certify the following class for settlement purposes consisting of approximately seven hundred seventy-six (776) individuals, which Defendant does not oppose:

“All persons who were directly employed by Defendant in non-exempt or hourly-paid production positions in California at any time during the period from April 8, 2011 to April 26, 2017 (the “Settlement Class Period”).”

The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3rd 1117, 1138.)

Newberg on Class Actions (4th Ed.), the most authoritative treatise on class actions, discusses the process for approving the settlement of a class action. At § 11.24, “Procedure for Submitting Class Settlement for Approval,” Newberg describes the review at the preliminary stage as the submission by the parties of the essential terms of the agreement for informal review of the settlement papers by the Court. In reviewing a request for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, the Court’s task is to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the “range of reasonableness” that would warrant sending out a notice of the settlement and giving the class members the opportunity to object. (Newberg on Class Actions, 4th. Ed. (2002) § 11.25). 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.) Preliminary approval by the trial court is simply a conditional finding that the settlement appears to be within the range of acceptable settlements. (See, e.g. Kullar v. Footlocker Retail Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116.) Generally, the Court will presume the absence of fraud or collusion in the negotiation of the settlement unless evidence to the contrary is offered. In short, there is a presumption that negotiations were conducted in good faith. (Newberg, supra., at §11.51.)

The Court finds that the proposed settlement, reached after mediation, appears not to be the product of fraud or overreaching and appears to be fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the members of the putative class and thereby meets the criteria for preliminary approval. (Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.)

In this wage and hour action, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendant committed numerous wage and hour violations, failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to timely pay

wages on termination, failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements, failed to keep required payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses and failed to pay for all hours worked. Plaintiff also alleged violations of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and also sought penalties under PAGA.

According to the proposed settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay a Gross Settlement amount of $4,000,000.00, on a claims-made basis. From the Gross Settlement, the Net Settlement Fund will be calculated by deducting (1) attorneys’ fees of up to 35% ($1,400,000.00) of the Gross Settlement, (2) reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of up to $50,000.00, (3) enhancement awards to the plaintiffs in a total amount of up to $30,000.00, (4) $50,062.50 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency for its share of the PAGA penalties (75% of $66,750) and Administration costs of up to $25,000.00. The parties have agreed to retain CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator.

The Settlement Administrator will calculate the pro rata share of the New Settlement Fund that each class member is eligible to claim on a pro rata basis according to the number of weeks a class member worked during the relevant period from April 8, 2011 to April 26, 2017.

The Court therefore preliminarily approves the settlement. The Court also approves the notice of settlement, provisionally certifies the class for settlement purposes, confirms Plaintiff as the class representative, and Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel.

The Court will sign the proposed order preliminarily approving the class action settlement.

The final approval hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in this department. Plaintiffs shall file the motion for final approval and for attorneys’ fees no later than Tuesday, May 1, 2018.