Josefina Quiroz vs Natural Pack Inc
Josefina Quiroz vs Natural Pack Inc
Case Number
22CV02389
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 11/27/2023 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Hearing re: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Tentative Ruling
Josefina Quiroz, et al. v. Natural Pack, Inc.
Lead Case No. 22CV02389
Hearing Date: November 27, 2023
HEARING: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Josefina Quiroz and the putative class: Mehrdad Bokhour, Bokhour Law Group, P.C., Michelle Eshaghian, Eshaghian Law, PC
For Plaintiffs Christian P. Adame Prado, Maria Torres, and the putative class: Kashif Haque, Samuel A. Wong, Jessica L. Campbell, Joseph M. Szilagyi, Aegis Law Firm, PC
For Defendant Natural Pack, Inc.: Nicholas Kanter, Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan
TENTATIVE RULING:
For all reasons discussed herein, plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted in accordance with this ruling. Counsel shall appear at the hearing of this motion and shall be prepared to discuss any other matters remaining for the court at this time.
Background:
On March 9, 2022, plaintiff Christian P. Adame Prado (Prado) filed his original complaint as case number 22CV00940, and on July 11, 2022, filed his first amended class action complaint alleging eight causes of action against defendant Natural Pack, Inc. (Natural Pack): (1) Failure to pay wages; (2) Failure to provide meal periods; (3) Failure to permit rest breaks; (4) Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) Failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (6) Failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (7) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and (8) Enforcement of Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA).
On June 24, 2022, plaintiff Josefina Quiroz (Quiroz) filed her original class and representative action complaint as case number 22CV02389 (the Quiroz action), alleging eleven causes of action against Natural Pack: (1) Failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) Failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) Failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; (4) Failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (5) Failure to maintain accurate employment records; (6) Failure to pay wages timely during employment; (7) Failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; (8) Failure to reimburse business expenses; (9) Failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (10) Unfair competition; and (11) PAGA penalties.
After a hearing on July 17, 2023, the court granted Prado, Quiroz, and Torres’ (collectively, plaintiffs) motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, finding the settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable and within the range of acceptable settlements that could be ultimately given final approval by the court.
In granting the motion, the court preliminarily approved a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $292,546.24, to settle and release all claims asserted by plaintiffs on behalf of a class of all persons who are or were previously employed by Natural Pack at any time from March 9, 2018, until June 30, 2022 (the class period) and who were classified as a non-exempt or hourly employee (the proposed class). The net settlement amount available for distribution to the proposed class is the gross settlement amount discussed above less attorneys’ fees not to exceed $97,515.41, costs not to exceed $20,000.0, incentive awards to plaintiffs in the amount of $10,000.00 each, settlement administration fees of not more than $7,500.00, and the amount of $7,500 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the LWDA) in settlement of the PAGA claims.
Plaintiffs presented evidence demonstrating that the settlement class is comprised of approximately 352 members. Each class member’s share of the net settlement amount will be calculated and apportioned based upon the number of workweeks each class member worked during the class period. The court found that certification of the class for settlement purposes was appropriate and provisionally certified the proposed class.
The court also found that the claims of each plaintiff are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class, and that plaintiffs made a sufficient showing demonstrating that each will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members. Accordingly, the court appointed Prado, Quiroz, and Torres as representatives of the proposed class.
The court further found that plaintiffs’ counsel is experienced and qualified in wage and hour class litigation and will properly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Therefore, the court appointed Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C., Michelle Eshaghian of Eshaghian Law, P.C., and Kashif Haque and Joseph M. Szilagyi of the Aegis Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel.
The court further approved the proposed “Notice of Settlement of Class Action” (the notice) to be provided to the class members, finding that the notice fairly apprised the class members of the terms of the proposed settlement and the options available to dissenting members, and approved the distribution of the notice to the proposed class.
The court also appointed ILYM Group, Inc. (ILYM) as the third-party settlement administrator.
The court set a hearing for final approval of the class action settlement on November 27, 2023, and ordered this action consolidated with case number 22CV0094 for purposes of settlement, with case number 22CV02389 designated as the lead case.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order finally approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, finally certifying the settlement class, appointing plaintiffs as class representatives for purposes of settlement, finally appointing class counsel for purposes of settlement, finding that the notice was properly provided in accordance with the court’s order granting preliminary approval, binding participating class member to the terms of the settlement agreement, and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
No party to this matter has filed an opposition to the motion for final approval of the settlement.
Analysis:
After preliminary approval of the class action settlement and notice to the class, the final approval hearing is the final step in the procedure for approval of a class action settlement. During the final approval hearing, the court conducts a more detailed inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(g).) If the court approves the settlement agreement at the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter a judgment that includes a provision for the court to retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(h).)
“[A] trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair.” (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) A class action settlement is presumptively fair if it was reached through arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after extensive investigation, litigation, and discovery. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802; accord, Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 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].)
The first three elements of the presumption of fairness were established at the time of preliminary approval. No further evidence has been presented which would alter the court’s preliminary determination of each of these elements.
With respect to the fourth element, plaintiffs submit the declaration of Nathalie Hernandez in support of the motion. Hernandez is the Case Manager for ILYM. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 1.) Hernandez presents evidence demonstrating ILYM’s duties performed and to be performed after final approval which includes the printing and mailing of the notice in English and Spanish to the class members (collectively, the notice packet), the processing of requests for exclusion, the resolution of disputes about the number of workweeks each class member worked for Natural Pack during the class period, calculating individual settlement award amounts, mailing award checks, handling tax withholdings, preparing and issuing tax returns and forms, and handing the distribution of unclaimed settlement payments, among other tasks. (See Hernandez Decl., ¶ 3.)
On July 24, 2023, ILYM prepared a draft of the notice packet. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 4.) On August 3, 2023, ILYM received and uploaded the class data file provided by Natural Pack’s counsel (the class list). (Id. at ¶ 5.) The class list was comprised of 396 individuals. (Ibid.)
The names and addresses contained in the class list were processed against the National Change of Address (NCOA) database which is maintained by the United States Postal Service (USPS), for the purpose of updating and confirming the mailing addresses of the settlement class members prior to mailing the notice packet. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 6.) To the extent an updated address was found in the NCOA database, that address was used to mail the notice packet to the class member. (Ibid.) To the extent that no updated address was found in the NCOA database, the original address provided by Natural Pack’s counsel was used to mail the notice packet to the class member. (Ibid.)
On August 24, 2023, the notice packet was mailed to all 396 individuals contained in the class list. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. A.) A total of 39 notice packets were returned to ILYM as undeliverable. (Id. at ¶ 8.) ILYM performed a skip trace on 37 returned notice packets that did not have a forwarding address, which resulted in ILYM obtaining 32 updated addresses.(Ibid.) The notice packets were promptly re-mailed to those class members. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.) Seven notice packets were deemed undeliverable because no updated address was found. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
The deadline to request an exclusion from or object to the settlement was October 9, 2023. (Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 11, 12.) ILYM did not receive any requests for exclusion or objections to the settlement. (Ibid.) ILYM reports a total of 396 participating class members which ILYM asserts represents 100 percent of the settlement class members. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
The net settlement amount calculated by ILYM is $128,799.23. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 14.) Based on ILYM’s calculations which use a pro-rata formula based on the number of workweeks worked by class members during the class period, participating class members will receive an estimated average gross payment of $325.25, with an estimated highest gross payment of $1,630.62. (Ibid.)
Based on the evidence presented by ILYM and discussed above, the factors present here give rise to a presumption that the class action settlement was fair.
The court must also determine the adequacy of a class action settlement by independently satisfying itself that the consideration being received for the release of the class members’ claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) The court has reviewed the evidence and arguments presented, and is satisfied that the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the strengths and weakness of the claims and the uncertainties of protracted litigation.
Based upon the totality of the circumstances present here, the court finds that the settlement preliminarily approved is fair and reasonable. The court will accordingly grant the motion for final approval. The Court has certified the class for settlement purposes only.
The Court further affirms and approves the allocation of $10,000 of the gross settlement amount to the PAGA claims, and affirms and approves the payment of the amount of $7.500 to the LWDA, as required by law.
The court will further affirm named plaintiffs Quiroz, Prado, and Torres as the class representatives. The court has reviewed the declarations of Quiroz, Prado, and Torres submitted in support of the motion. In light of the time and efforts expended by the class representatives in assisting class counsel to pursue this matter, at substantial risk should the actions have been unsuccessful and resulted in personal liability for Natural Pack’s costs, and with a small financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, the court finds an incentive award of $10,000 to be paid to each class representative, which is in addition to each representative’s pro rata share of the settlement fund, to be reasonable. The court will therefore approve an incentive award to each named plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.
The court will also approve the appointment of Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C., Michelle Eshaghian of Eshaghian Law, P.C., and Kashif Haque and Joseph M. Szilagyi of the Aegis Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel. The stipulated settlement provided for an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel not to exceed $97,515.41, which is approximately 33.33% of the gross settlement amount.
“[T]he court’s task in a negotiated settlement of fees is to determine if the negotiated fee is fair. That task requires the court to review the settlement as a whole, including the fee award, to ensure that it was fairly and honestly negotiated, is not collusive and adequately protects the interests of the [parties].” (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 444.)
Quiroz presents evidence that she signed a retainer agreement informing her of a fee sharing agreement between class counsel which for a split of attorneys’ fees. (Quiroz Decl., ¶ 9.) Class counsel each present evidence that the lodestar amount of fees incurred with respect to the hours expended by counsel Bokhour and counsel Eshaghian totals $167,220, and that the lodestar amount of fees with respect to the time expended by counsel Haque and counsel Szilagyi totals $112,370. (See Bokhour Decl., ¶ 21; Eshaghian Decl., ¶ 15; Szilagyi Decl., ¶¶ 11-13.) The court finds that, under the totality of the circumstances present here and considering the contingent nature of the representation and its attendant risks, the attorney’s fees and costs sought by plaintiff’s counsel are fair and reasonable. The court will approve a total fee award in the amount of $97,515.41.
The settlement agreement further provides for an award of litigation costs not to exceed $20,000. Counsel notes that costs actually incurred for which plaintiffs seek reimbursement total $18,799.41. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 17; see also Eshaghian Decl., ¶ 14.) The court will approve an award of costs in the amount of $18,799.41.
The court further affirms payment of administration costs to ILYM in the amount of $7,500. (See Hernandez Decl., ¶ 15.) The court also finds that ILYM’s distribution of the notice packet to class members meets due process requirements and was adequate.
The court will reserve jurisdiction over the parties for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, and or administering the settlement or enforcing the terms of the judgement.
The court has reviewed the amended proposed Order Granting Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement and Entry of Final Judgment Thereon (proposed order and judgment) submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel. The proposed order and judgment accurately set forth the findings of this court, and the court intends to execute it following the hearing. Counsel is requested to present the court with a proposed date for the final hearing regarding a final accounting and distribution of funds (see proposed order and judgment at page 7, paragraph 19). The court will require a final report and declaration to be filed no later than 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.