Martinez v. Semi-Tropic Coop. Gin & Almond Huller
| Decision Date | 19 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-1581 JLT CDB |
| Parties | FABIAN CABALLERO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEMI-TROPIC COOPERATIVE GIN & ALMOND HULLER, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE PAYMENT (Doc. 55)
Fabian Caballero Martinez asserts Semi-Tropic Cooperative Gin & Almond Huller failed to comply with wage and hour laws. Plaintiff now seeks final approval of a settlement reached in this action. In addition, Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs from the settlement fund, costs for settlement administration, and a service payment for the class representative. (Doc. 55.) Defendant does not oppose these requests, and no class member submitted objections to the settlement terms. The Court found the matters suitable for decision without oral arguments pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing for final approval was vacated. (Doc 56.)
Because Plaintiff has met the burden to demonstrate certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-and the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate-the request for final approval of the Settlement is GRANTED. The request for attorney fees is GRANTED in the modified amount of $120,000.00; costs are awarded in the a ount of $10,537.33 settlement administration costs are granted in the amount of $5,000.00; and Plaintiff's service award payment is GRANTED in the modified amount of $2,500.00.
Plaintiff is a former, non-exempt employee of Defendant. (Doc. 16 at 4 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff reports that he performed “janitorial work and moving and sorting loads of almonds for shipment.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant's business runs twenty-four .. hours a day processing almonds,” and the nature of the job required “someone always be present to monitor the machines.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 27.) He explains: “If the machines are left unattended while operating, trash and debris can damage the machines that process the almonds.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, “[f]or that reason, employees were required to show up early for their shifts to ensure that someone is always present to monitor the machines during shift changes.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends his supervisor “also required that Plaintiff be at work early so that he can immediately replace the other employee.” (Id.)
Plaintiff reports he “typically worked from Monday through Saturday,” and “was scheduled to work from 6 PM to 6 AM.” (Doc. 16 at 7, ¶ 28.) However, Plaintiff alleges he “had to clock in early and clock out late.” (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff reports he arrived at work five to ten minutes before he was scheduled, and “[t]his time was never compensated.” (Id.) In addition, he asserts he “had to occasionally remain at work up to 20 minutes after his shift had ended to allow his replacement to relieve him,” and without compensation. (Id.) Plaintiff contends he also “is aware that other employees were required to do the same. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, his “wage statements reveal that he was paid for seventy-two ... hours of work nearly every pay period, which suggests that Defendant was improperly rounding Plaintiff's time worked.” (Id. at 7-8, ¶ 28.) He asserts that “[o]n at least one occasion,” Defendant required Plaintiff to work seven days in a row, and Plaintiff “was not compensated at double his wage after the eighth hour of work.” (Id. at 8, ¶ 28.)
Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods, “or pay a premium wage in lieu thereof.” (Doc. 16 at 8, ¶¶ 29-30.) He contends he “did not receive his first meal period until 1 AM, more than seven . hours into his shift.” (Id., ¶ 29.) Plaintiff asserts he “never received a second lunch period or signed a meal period waiver.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “he was often interrupted and asked to perform work duties” during his rest and meal periods. (Id., ¶¶ 2930.) For example, Plaintiff asserts: “Supervisors and other employees would come into the break room and tell Plaintiff to work on a task that needed attention.” (Id., ¶ 30.) Plaintiff contends such practices “occurred every shift,” and he “was never compensated with premium wages.” (Id., ¶¶ 29-30.)
According to Plaintiff, “Defendant also failed to provide Class members, including Plaintiff, with accurate itemized wage statements.” (Doc. 16 at 8, ¶ 31.) He asserts the wage statement did not “reflect[] all hours worked by Plaintiff” because he “was required to work before and after his shift had ended,” and this time was not reflected on the wage statements. (Id.) Plaintiff contends Defendant failed “to itemize in wage statements all wages earned and accounting for the applicable rate of pay for Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 34.)
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that upon his termination, Defendant “failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked.” (Doc. 16 at 8, ¶ 32.) He contends Defendant did not pay statutory penalties to class members, including Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant “made it difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages due to Plaintiff and the Class because Defendant did not fully implement and preserve a record keeping method to accurately record all hours worked and wages earned by its employees as required for non-exempt employees.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 35.)
On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1.) He filed a First Amended Complaint on January 30, 2020. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff identified the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal law; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages under California law; (4) failure to furnish itemized wage statements; (5) meal period violations; (6) rest period violations; (7) failure to pay wages due upon termination or resignation; (8) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (9) civil penalties pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act. (Doc. 16 at 12-26.) He asserted the claims were brought on behalf of himself and a class including: “All persons employed by Defendant in the State of California at any time within four [] years of the filing of the Initial Complaint in this action.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 39.) Defendant filed its First Amended Answer on March 5, 2020. (Doc. 21.)
The Court issued its Scheduling Order governing the action on April 14, 2020. (Doc. 24.) The parties engaged in discovery, including the production of “payroll and timekeeping records for the Class.” (Doc. 47-1 at 8.) Plaintiff's counsel also hired an expert “to perform an extensive review and analysis of these records and assembled a comprehensive damages model.” (Doc. 42-2 at 10.)
The parties participated in mediation with Steven M. Vartabedian on June 1, 2021. (Doc. 47-1 at 8.) “As a result of mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principal (sic) to settle this matter, which they memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding.” (Doc. 47-2 at 10, ¶ 20.) The parties later entered into the “Settlement Agreement and Release,” which the parties and counsel executed between January and March 2022. (Doc. 42-3 at 2-26.) Plaintiff submitted this agreement to the LWDA on March 2, 2022. (Doc. 55-2 at 15, Mallison Decl. ¶ 38.)
In June 2022, the parties executed the “Amended Settlement Agreement and Release” “to conform with the applicable federal class certification requirements laid out in Rule 23,” because the original agreement referred to certification of the Settlement Class under state law. (See Doc. 45 at 2; see also Doc. 47-3.) Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for approval of the amended settlement. (Doc. 47.) On October 19, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval. (Doc. 50.) The Court appointed Fabian Caballero Martinez as Class Representative and authorized his request for an incentive payment “up to the amount of $10,000, subject to a petition and review” when seeking final approval. (Id. at 30.) The Court appointed the firm of Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel, who were authorized to seek “fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and identified costs,” also subject to review at final approval stage. (Id.) Simpluris, Inc. was appointed the Settlement Administrator, and authorized to seek up to $5,000 for administrative costs. (Id.)
The Court also preliminarily approved a PAGA payment of $50,000 from the gross settlement, including $37,500 to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency with the remainder to be paid to aggrieved employees. (Doc. 50 at 24-26.) However, the Court noted that only the initial agreement was submitted to the LWDA and directed Plaintiff to submit the “Amended Settlement Agreement and Release” to the LWDA within seven days of the date of service of the order granting preliminary approval. (Id. at 26, n.9; id. at 29, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff submitted the amended agreement to the LWDA on October 25, 2022. (Doc. 59-2 at 2.)
On October 31, 2022, the Court approved the Class Notice. (Doc. 54 at 1; see also Doc. 53-1.) The Class Notice informed the Class Members of the nature of the action, the class definition preliminarily approved by the Court, the issues to be resolved, claims released by participating class members, representation by counsel, deadlines for exclusion and objections, and the binding effect of a class judgment. (See Doc. 53-1; Doc. 55-4 at 2-7.)
The Settlement Administrator reports Defendant provided data that identified 161 individuals...
To continue reading
Request your trial