2017-00206917-CU-OE

Tracy Gorman Seymour vs. Quest Service Group, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Filed By: Katofsky, Alex P.

Plaintiff Tracy Gorman Seymour’s unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is tentatively granted pending the final fairness hearing to be held on this date. (Code of Civil Procedure § 382, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

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.)

The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg on Class Actions 4th (4th ed. 2002) § 11.41 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950; see also Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 592, 602.) The trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1117, 1138.) In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.) 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.)

While the Court’s ruling indicates that it will give its final approval to the class action settlement and approve class counsel’s fee requests and the class representative service fee, the Court must still hold the final fairness hearing to allow potential class members the opportunity to be heard. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)

In this wage and hour action, Plaintiff Tracy Gorman Seymour alleged, among other things, that Defendant Quest Service Group, LLC committed numerous wage and hour violations, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to pay all wages and failed to issue properly itemized wage statements. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and also sought penalties under PAGA.

The Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement on December 13, 2017. Consistent with the Court’s order, notice of settlement was provided to the 724 class members. The Claims Administrator received 84 Notices returned as undeliverable. (Bench Decl. ¶ 9.) The Claims Administrator performed a skip trace resulting in 62 updated addresses and re-mailed the Notices. To date, after performing the skip trace, 34 Notice Packets have ultimately been deemed undeliverable. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $300,000 pursuant to which class members (“[a]ll persons employed by Defendant Quest Service Group, LLC in California as non-exempt temporary and full-time merchandisers between January 24, 2013 and August 24, 2017”) will receive payments on a pro rata basis according to the number of shifts worked. There are 724 class members.

The settlement also includes a class representative payment in an amount not to exceed $7,500, and allows class counsel to seek fees in an amount not to exceed $105,000 and up to $12,000 in costs, all of which will be deducted from the gross settlement amount. The settlement also provides that class administration fees of approximately $8,000 will be deducted from the gross settlement amount. The settlement also provides that Defendant agreed to pay $1,000 to settle the PAGA claims and that $750 of that amount will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in connection with Labor Code § 2698. If less than 40% of the net settlement proceeds are claimed, the difference between the 40% of the net settlement proceeds and the total of the individual payment amounts to be paid to claiming class members shall be paid to the Sacramento Region Community Foundation where it will be distributed to various tax-exempt charitable organizations through the Lisa Beth Gerstman Foundation.

Before finally approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244, 245.) “[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.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) The Court considers such factors as “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 class members to the proposed settlement.” (Id. at 1801.)

Here, the Court tentatively finds that the settlement is entitled to final approval. The moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and investigation which allowed the parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. (D. Gaines Decl. ¶¶ 13-18) Further, class counsel is experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, having litigated numerous wage and hour class actions and believes that the settlement is fair and in the best interests of the class. (Id. ¶¶ 2-7, 28-53; Katofsky Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) Moreover, the class reaction is overwhelmingly positive as no opt outs and no objections were received. (Bench Decl. ¶¶ 13, 14.)

The settlement in this action provides value to the class members as it provides them monetary compensation in a manner approximately commensurate with the potential value of their individual claims in light of the risks of continued litigation. (D. Gaines Decl. ¶¶ 31-42.) Class members will receive an average of $308.46. (Bench Decl. ¶ 17.) Further, as

In addition, the Court tentatively approves Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees

and costs. Specifically, the Court approves Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $105,000 [35% of settlement amount] and costs in the amount of
$10,602.81 [the settlement allowed for up to $12,500]. Given that these amounts were
disclosed in the class notice, no objections to these amounts were received, and the
contingent nature of class counsel’s representation and the associated risks, the Court
finds the requested fees and costs to be an appropriate award. The Court also
tentatively approves the claims administration fees of $8,000. The Court also
approves the $1,000 PAGA settlement and the $750 payment to the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency in connection with Labor Code § 2698.

Finally, the Court tentatively approves the $7,500 class representative enhancement award to Plaintiff Tracy Gorman Seymour for her time and effort serving as the class representative. This is an appropriate award.

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing, the Court concludes that the class shall be certified for settlement purposes, that the settlement is entitled to final approval and that the various fee requests are appropriate and also entitled to approval.

The Court anticipates that it will sign the proposed final order approving class action settlement at the conclusion of the final fairness hearing in the event that it adopts the findings set forth above which given the above the Court anticipates it will do.