Garcia v. Schlumberger Lift Sols.
| Decision Date | 23 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 1:18-cv-01261-DAD JLT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT SOLUTIONS, et al. Defendants. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
(Doc. 53)
Cristobal Garcia asserts that he and others employed by Defendants Schlumberger suffered wage and hour violations, including lost wages. Plaintiff now seeks final approval of a class settlement related only the claim for "payment of safety bonuses by the Defendants which were not used in calculating overtime." (Doc. 41-1 at 6; see also Doc. 53 at 4) In addition, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the settlement fund, fees for claims administration, and a class representative enhancement payment. (See generally Doc. 53)
Because Plaintiff carries his burden to demonstrate the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court recommends final approval be GRANTED. In addition, the Court recommends the request for attorney fees in the amount of $175,000 and costs in the amount of $14,670.01 be GRANTED; Plaintiff's class representative award be GRANTED in the modified amount of $1,500; and a claims administration costs be GRANTED in the modified amount of $6,000.
Plaintiff asserts that he was "employed in Kern County by Defendants as a non-exempt employee." (Doc. 1-3 at 5, ¶ 1) According to Plaintiff, "Defendants failed to pay [employees] for all hours worked." (Id. at 12, ¶ 32) For example, he reports the employees were "instructed ... to arrive at their base office to perform work and to then board company vehicles that would transport them to a second job location away from their base office," and if employees failed to arrive early enough, they generally would not be permitted to work that day. (Id. at 9, ¶ 20) He alleges employees were not permitted to clock in "until they reached their assigned field locations," approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour after they arrived at the base camp, although there was a clock at the base office, and were not paid for that time. (Id. at 9-10, ¶¶ 21, 23) In addition, Plaintiff contends the employees were not paid for time at the base office waiting for training courses. (Id. at 11, ¶ 30)
He alleges Defendants also failed to provide "duty-free meal periods in a timely manner." (Doc. 1-3 at 15, ¶ 46) He contends Defendants "failed to provide... meal periods within the first five hours of their work" and "frequently failed to provide Plaintiff and other[s] ... with required meal periods of not less than 30 minutes in duration." (Id., ¶¶ 47-48) Plaintiff reports the employers were not permitted "to leave the workplace during purported meal breaks and did not count their time worked through breaks for regular and overtime wage purposes." (Id., ¶ 50) He also reports that when employees worked in excess of ten-hour shifts to attend classes after the shift, Defendants provided food during the class but failed to provide a second meal break. (Id., ¶¶ 51-52) Similarly, Plaintiff asserts employees were not provided "with the required duty-free rest periods... to which they were entitled." (Id. at 17, ¶¶ 58, 60)
According to Plaintiff, Defendants "failed to maintain and furnish Plaintiff and Class members with accurate and complete wage statements regarding their gross wages earned, total hours worked, total net wages earned, the name and address of the entity that is the legal employer, and all applicable hourly rates in effect..." (Doc. 1-3 at 20, ¶ 67) He contends this failure to provide accurate wage statements resulted in "the non-payment of all their regular and overtime wages and deprived them of the information necessary to identify the discrepancies in Defendants' reported data." (Id., ¶ 68)
Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts Defendants had unlawful policies related to their uniforms, and"failed to indemnify Plaintiff and other Class members for necessary expenditures and bosses incurred by the employees in the direct discharge of their duties." (Doc. 1-3 at 23, ¶ 83) He alleges employees were "required to wear uniforms and were required to pay for costs associated with the laundering and upkeep of those uniforms." (Id. at 22, ¶ 81) He asserts employees were also "liable for costs associated with damage of the uniforms," and the "damage liability was broadly described to include normal wear and tear or other accidental, incidental or inadvertent damage that may have occurred during the execution of... duties." (Id.) Plaintiff reports he and other employees were required to sign a document that acknowledged he was "just using the jacket" but was "responsible for the maintenance of the jacket, including laundering," and "agree[d] to follow the laundry instructions included with the garment." (Id. at 23, ¶ 81)
On June 5, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-18-101388. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 1) He filed a First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2018, in which Plaintiff asserted the following claims: (1) failure to pay compensation due, (2) meal period violations, (3) rest break violations, (4) failure to furnish itemized wage statements, (5) failure to pay wages timely upon termination, (6) failure to indemnify business expenses, (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17203, and (8) civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act. (See generally Doc. 1-3 at 4-5, 8-25) He asserted the first seven cause of action were brought "for himself and on behalf of a class and sub-class initially defined as follows:
(Id. at 6-7, ¶ 8) After Defendants were served with the First Amended Complaint, they filed a Notice of Removal on September 13, 2018, thereby initiating the action in this Court. (Doc. 1)
The Court issued its Scheduling Order governing the action on November 29, 2018. (Doc. 12) The parties engaged in discovery, including the production of "extensive payroll and time-keeping data." (Doc. 41-1 at 16) Plaintiff was deposed and took the deposition of Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) designee. (Id. at 17)
On March 25, 2020, the parties engaged in mediation with Jeffrey Krivis. (Doc. 41-1 at 7) Plaintiff reports that "[a]s a result of a mediator's proposal, the Parties were able to partially resolve the action with respect to the claim for unpaid overtime on safety bonuses and related derivative claims." (Id.) Specifically, the parties agreed:
Plaintiff's first and seventh causes of action survive as to Settlement Class Members insofar as they rely upon any theory of recovery other than miscalculation of regular rate/unpaid overtime on safety bonuses. The fifth cause of action shall be resolved, settled and released in full, for the Settlement Class Members only. The fourth cause of action shall be resolved, settled and released in full, for the Settlement Class Members only, as to any claims arising prior to January 19, 2019.
(Doc. 41-2 at 38-39, Settlement § 10, ¶ 51) Further, the parties agreed the PAGA penalties of $30,000 "satisfies in full all PAGA penalties ... attributable to the first and fourth causes of action or claims alleged therein limited to the time period prior to January 19, 2019, and all penalties attributable to the fifth cause of action or claims alleged therein through the date of Final Approval." (Id.)
The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement on July 16, 2020. (Doc. 44) The Court granted conditional certification of the Settlement Class, which was defined as:
All non-exempt employees of Schlumberger Lift Solutions LLC or Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc. who do not opt out of the settlement and who, at any time within the period beginning June 5, 2014 and ending on January 19, 2019 ("Class Period"), worked in California and received a safety bonus by Schlumberger Lift Solutions LLC or Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc. pursuant to a safety bonus program of Schlumberger Lift Solutions LLC or Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc. at any time within the Class Period.
(Id. at 20; see also Doc. 41-2 at 20, Settlement ¶ 6) Plaintiff Cristobal Garcia was appointed as the Class Representative, and authorized to seek enhancement payments up to $7,500 for his representation of the class. (Doc. 44 at 20) Lonnie Blanchard III and Peter Dion-Kindem were appointed as Class Counsel, and authorized to seek fees that did not "exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and costs up to $20,000." (Id.) Finally, Simpluris, Inc. ("Simpluris") was appointed the Settlement Administrator and with administration costs authorized up to $6,000. (Id.) The Court approved a Class Notice Packet that conveyed this information to class members on July 20, 2020. (Doc. 46)
On September 6, 2020, Simpluris mailed the Class Notice Packet to 250 class members. (Doc. 53-4 at 3, Cita Decl. ¶ 7) Simpluris reported only one Notice Packet remained undeliverable. (Id. at 4, ¶ 8) No exclusion requests were received from Class Members. (Doc. 53-4 at 4, Cita Decl. ¶ 4) Inaddition, the Settlement Administrator did not receive any objections to the proposed settlement terms from Class Members. (Id., ¶ 11) On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the motion for final approval now pending before the Court. Defendants have not opposed the motion, and the Court did not receive any objections from Class Members.
Pursuant to the proposed settlement ("the Settlement"), the parties agree to a gross settlement amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial