Munoz v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 1:09-cv-00703 - AWI- JLT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORP., Defendant. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING IN PART THE REQUESTS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FEES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
(Doc. 227)
Rafael Munoz, Santos Valenzula, Trindad Ruiz, Marta Rincon de Diaz, Ramon Cervantes Perales and Hugo Perez Rios (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek final approval of a class settlement reached in this action with Defendant Giumarra Vineyards Corporation. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the settlement fund, fees for claims administration, and class representative enhancement payments. (Doc. 227)
Because Plaintiffs carry their burden to demonstrate certification the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court recommends Plaintiffs' request for final approval of the Settlement be GRANTED. In addition, the Court recommends the request for attorney fees be GRANTED in the modified amount of $1,525,000; costs be awarded in the modified amount of $175,000.00; enhancement payments be GRANTED in PART for Rafael Munoz, Santos Valenzuela, Ramon Perales, Hugo Perez, Trinidad Ruiz, and Marta Rincon de Diaz; and enhancement payments be DENIED for Lidia Cruz, and Yanet Hernandez.
On March 5, 2004, Arnaldo Lara, Mario Laveaga, Mirna Diaz, Paula Leon, and Raul Diaz, individually and acting for the interests of the general public, ("Lara Plaintiffs") initiated an action in the Kern County Superior Court against Rogelio Casimiro, doing business as Golden Grain Farm Labor.1 On September 12, 2005, the Lara Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and identified other employers of agricultural farm workers as defendants, including El Rancho Farms; Stevco, Inc.; Lucich Family Farms; and Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. The Lara Plaintiffs never identified Giumarra as a defendant in the state court action.
On November 9, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel initiated an action against table grape growers based in Kern County, including Giumarra Vineyards Corporation; Marko Zaninovich, Inc.; Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc.; Castlerock; D.M. Camp & Sons; Sunview Vineyards of California; El Rancho Farms; Stevco, Inc; and FAL, Inc.2 (See Doc. 46 at 12, n.17; see also Doe v. D.M. Camp & Sons, 624 F.Supp.2d 1153 (E.D. Cal. 2008). At the time the action was initiated, the plaintiffs were unnamed former and current employees of the defendants. Id. at 1156. The Court acknowledged the Doe matter was related to several other cases initiated against grape growers. Id.
On December 16, 2005, Santos R. Valenzuela, Trinidad Ruiz, Marta Ricon de Diaz, Ramon Cervantes Perales, and Hugo Perez Rios filed a complaint against Giumarra Vineyards, initiating Case No. 1:05-cv-1600-AWI-SMS. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, common law breach of contract, failure to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to reimburse expenses in violation of California Labor Code § 2802, failure to allow for meal and rest breaks pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, failure to keep accurate records, and violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. (Valenzuela, Doc. 1 at 1-2)
Defendants in Doe action, including Giumarra Vineyards, filed motions to dismiss the operative complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss and to sever the action and ordered the plaintiffs to file amended pleadings against each defendant. (Doe, Doc. 168) On May 29, 2008, Rafael Munoz, Lidia Cruz, and Yanet Hernandez were identified as plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint against Giumarra Vineyards. (Doe, Doc. 172) On March 31, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to re-file their suit in a new action within twenty days to finalize the severance. (Doe, Doc. 238)
On April 20, 2009, plaintiffs Rafael Munoz, Lidia Cruz, and Yanet Hernandez filed a complaint against Giumarra Vineyards. (Doc. 1) The plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases, including Valenzuela. (Doc. 6) The Court directed the parties to file briefs regarding consolidation (Doc. 8), and on August 20, 2009, the Court ordered the cases be consolidated. (Doc. 27)
On May 4, 2009, the Court observed the plaintiffs in Munoz and Valenzuela were "suing Giumarra on largely the same legal grounds" (Doc. 8 at 1) and were represented by "two groups of allied attorneys." (Doc. 20 at 1) The Munoz plaintiffs were represented by Mallison & Martinez; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld; and Milberg LLP; while the Valenzuela plaintiffs were represented by McNicholas & McNicholas; Kingsley & Kingsley; Bush, Gottlieb, Singer, Lopez, Kohanski, Adelstein & Dickinson; and the Law Offices of Marcos Camacho. (See Doc. 20 at 1) The Court consolidated Munoz and Valenzuela, and Court arranged class counsel as follows:
(Doc. 27 at 1-2) Thus, each of the law firms remained designated as Plaintiffs' counsel in the action.
On September 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed the "consolidated complaint" that identified all named plaintiffs in the action: Rafael Munoz, Lidia Cruz, Yanet Hernandez, Santos R. Valenzula, Trinidad Ruis, Marta Rincon de Diaz, Ramon Cervantes Perales and Hugo Perez Rios. (Doc. 28) Plaintiffs alleged Giumarra was liable for: violations of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801, failure to pay wages, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to reimburse required expenses, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions and record keeping requirements, breach of contract, and violation of unfair competition law. (Id. at 1-2) Plaintiffs brought the action "on behalf of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class comprising all non-exempt agricultural, packing shed, and storage cooler employees employed, or formerly employed, by each of the Defendants within the State of California." (Id. at 9) In April 2011, the parties stipulated to amend the operative complaint, "withdrawing Lidia Cruz and Yanet Hernandez as named plaintiffs and class representatives." (Doc. 36)
In November 2011, the parties requested a stay in the action pending the resolution of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008). The parties noted, "At issue in Brinker is the standard for determining an employer's obligations with respect to California's rest and meal break laws." (Doc. 79 at 2) Because Plaintiffs' amended complaint raised issues pending resolution in Brinker, the Court granted the request for a stay. (Doc. 80) On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Brinker. Therefore, the Court lifted the stay and heard oral arguments regarding the motion for class certification.
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification in part, certifying the "Late Meal Class" and "Tools Class" on June 13, 2013. (Docs. 109, 121) Each class included "all fieldworkers employed by Giumarra from 11/9/2001 to the present." (See Doc. 121 at 16) Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice—which included "the nature of the action, the class definitions approve by the Court, the claims and issues to be resolved, how a class member may enter appear through an attorney or chose to be excluded from the class, the time and method to opt-out of the class, and the binding effect of a class judgment"—was approved by the Court on December 11, 2013. (Doc. 137 at 1)
Following the Court's rulings on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, Defendantfiled a motion to decertify the Late Meals Class (Doc. 189), which was denied by the Court on September 30, 2016. (See Docs. 202, 210)
The parties engaged in mediation with Steven Vartabedian, a retired justice of California's Fifth District Court of Appeal. (Doc. 218 at 8) On November 29, 2016, Plaintiffs notified the Court that the parties had "come to an agreement in principle to resolve the matter entirely," and began "the process of formally documenting the timers of the proposed settlement." (Doc. 213 at 3) By January 6, 2017, the parties reported the terms had been finalized "and the settlement agreement [was being] circulated for signatures." (Doc. 215 at 3)
The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement on March 27, 2017. (Docs. 223) The Court granted conditional certification of the Settlement Class, which was defined as a combination of the previously-certified Tools Class and Late Meal Break Class, stating:
(Id. at 15; Doc. 219-1 at 4, Settlement § I.D) In addition, Rafael Munoz, Santos Valenzuela, Trinidad Ruiz, Marta R. Rincon de Diaz, Ramon Perales, and Hugo Perez Rios were appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives, and authorized to seek enhancement payments up to $7,500 for their representation of the class. (Doc. 223 at 15) The law firm of Mallison & Martinez...
To continue reading
Request your trial