2017-00207641-CU-OE

Daniel Hernandez vs. Snyir, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Filed By: Rodriguez, Justin P.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is unopposed and is GRANTED.

By this motion, Plaintiff class counsel requests that the Court (1) provisionally and conditionally certify the proposed settlement class; (2) grant preliminary and conditional approval of the proposed settlement; (3) set dates for and direct distribution to the class of (a) the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, and (b) the Claim Form notifying each lass member of the anticipated pro rate share of the settlement and how to file a claim; and, (4) adopt the implementation schedule contained in the proposed order and schedule a final approval hearing.

The Court is requested to preliminary certify this matter as a class action, on behalf of “all hourly employees who have been, or continue to be, employed by Defendants at any time within four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the date of this matter.”

Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed his complaint in this action on February 7, 2017, alleging eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to pay reimbursement expenses; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) recovery of waiting time penalties for failure to pay wages pursuant to Labor Code § 202; and, (8) unfair competition under Business & Professions Code § 17200.

The Court concludes that the settlement class satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality. Plaintiffs are adequately represented by Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez, and class counsel Galen Shimoda. It appears to the Court that common questions of fact and law predominate over individual questions in this action for purposes of settlement. The superiority requirement for class certification also has been satisfied.

Based on the briefs before the Court it appears the Parties have engaged in extensive discovery, investigation and exchange of thousands of pages of documents, as well as inspections and analysis. The putative class at the time of settlement comprises approximately 568 class members. The tentative settlement is the result of a mediation conducted on September 6, 2017, and the Parties now seek Court approval.

The essential settlement terms are as follows:

(1) Defendant shall pay a Maximum Settlement Amount (MSA) of $440,000.00 to settle all claims of Plaintiff. Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant shall pay no less than 40% of the Net Settlement Amount; the Net Settlement Amount is defined as the MSA less attorney fees and costs, class representative enhancement payment, claims administrators fees, payment to the California LWDA and payroll taxes. Should the class members claim less

than 40 % of the Net Settlement amount, the remaining amount up to the 40% threshold shall be redistributed pro rate to participating class members, such that Defendant in no case will pay less than 40% of the Net Settlement Amount to the Class.

(2) Of the NSA, 90% is allocated to a Driver/Mover Subclass and 10% is allocated to the Office Employee Subclass.
(3) Attorney fees shall not exceed one-third of the MSA (i.e., $146,666.67), plus an additional sum of no more than $12,500.00 in costs.

(4) Costs of administration of the Settlement are estimated at $5,000.00. Any difference between actual lesser costs and the estimated $5,000.00 would be paid to the class members on a pro rata basis.

(5) Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez to be paid a Class Representative Service Award of $10,000.00 in addition to any amount to which he may receive under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
(6) The amount allocated to Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims is
$2,500.00. The settlement class is to receive 25% of this amount ($625.00), which is included in the Net Settlement Amount. The remainder ($1,875.00) shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

(7) Administration fees, attorney fees and costs, class representative enhancement payment, payroll taxes and payment to the LWDA shall be paid out of the MSA.

The trial court has broad authority to determine whether a proposed settlement of a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 200 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1138..) To prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Malibu Outrigger Bd. of Governors v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 573, 578-579.)

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 Action, 3d Ed. (1992)

§ 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 and 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 view of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

The Court hereby grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and Notice provisions.

The final settlement approval date shall be scheduled for Friday May 11, 2018, or such later date as is necessary for the administrator and counsel.