Ranger v. Shared Imaging, LLC
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-401-KJN |
| Decision Date | 05 July 2023 |
| Parties | MONICA RANGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARED IMAGING, LLC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT (ECF NOS. 41, 61.)
Presently pending before the court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for provisional certification of a Rule 23 class and preliminary approval of the parties' class action and PAGA settlement in this meal- and rest-break labor dispute.[1](ECF Nos. 41, 44, 61.)
For the following reasons, the court GRANTS provisional certification of the settlement class, APPOINTS plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's counsel from the Clayeo firm as class counsel, GRANTS preliminary approval of the class action and full approval of the PAGA settlement APPROVES the class notice-after small modifications are made and SETS further deadlines.
Plaintiff has worked for defendant Shared Imaging part-time from January 2019 through the present as a nuclear medicine technologist “safely conducting] positron emission tomography (“PET”) scans” for Kaiser health physicians. She alleges that due to the nature of the work, including defendant's setting of her work schedule and her patients' inefficiencies, it was impossible for her to take meal or rest breaks despite regularly working 13+ hour shifts. She also alleges defendant failed to pay overtime wages and required her to use her personal phone for business purposes without compensation. She alleges these allegations are common to the class and to all aggrieved workers under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). (ECF No. 65.)
Plaintiff filed a case in California Superior Court in Sacramento on January 21, 2020; soon thereafter defendant removed to this court on diversity jurisdiction grounds. (ECF No. 1.) The operative Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”) asserts claims on behalf of a class defined as “all persons who are or have been employed [within the class period] as nuclear medicine technologists.” (ECF No. 65 at ¶ 52.) The 3AC asserts claims for failure to pay premiums on forfeited rest and meal periods under Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; failure to pay overtime wages under Wage Order No. 5-2001 § 3(A) and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194; failure to provide accurate pay stubs under Cal. Labor Code § 226; failure to reimburse business expenses as required by Cal. Labor Code § 2802; and failure to pay timely wages under Cal Labor Code § 202 and 203. (Id. at 14-21.) The 3AC also asserts an ancillary claim under Cal. Bus. Code § 17200 and a claim for PAGA penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 2699. (Id. at 18-20.)
In the years that followed, the parties exchanged discovery and negotiated over the size of the class and damages. (ECF No. 41-1 at ¶¶ 11-20, 23-29.) On November 8, 2021, the parties informed the court they had reached an agreement in principle, and the assigned district judge stayed the case. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-31.) On May 10, 2022, the parties executed the longform agreement to settle the case on behalf of plaintiff and the class. (Id. at ¶ 34.) On June 30, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking provisional certification of the class, court approval of the settlement, and further scheduling for final approval of the settlement. (ECF No. 41.) The court noted issues, and the parties supplemented their filings. (ECF Nos. 54, 61, 63.)
The Settlement Agreement contains a release of all claims that are factually supported by the 3AC against defendant by the proposed class, who are defined as “all current and former hourly non-exempt nuclear medicine technologists and assistants to nuclear medicine technologists employed by defendant in California at any time during the class period.” (ECF No. 61-2 at ¶¶ 5, 20, 36 (the Settlement Agreement).) The Agreement sets the PAGA period from January 20, 2019, through the date of the court's preliminary approval. (Id. at ¶ 16.) The proposed class consists of approximately “82 class members who worked approximately 6,485 Work Weeks during the Class Period,” and is divided into two subclasses: (a) non-exempt nuclear medicine technologists employed by defendant in California at any time during the class period (the “Technologist Subclass”); and (b) assistants to nuclear medicine technologists employed by defendant in California at any time during the class period (The “Assistant Subclass”).[2] (Id. at ¶ 5.) The parties have estimated there are 42 potential members of the Technologist Subclass and 40 potential members of the Assistant Subclass. (ECF No. 41-4 at 7.) After the court noted a mismatch between the Rule 23 class and the PAGA Members (ECF No. 54), the parties modified the terms of the Agreement so that the individuals in the Rule 23 Class are the same as those affected by the PAGA settlement. (See ECF No. 61 at 3-4.)
In return for the release of claims from these individuals, the Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $768,000. (ECF No. 61-2 at ¶ 27.) This amount is to be increased by 2% on a proportional basis if the actual number of work weeks worked by the class members is 10% greater than the estimated amount (i.e. if there are 7,263.2 work weeks, or 12% more work weeks than estimated, the gross settlement amount would increase by $16,000, or 2%). (Id. at ¶ 28.) This amount represents approximately a little over one-sixth of the estimated, hypothetical maximum damages ($4,462,420.26). (ECF No. 61 at 68.) In arguing the settlement is fair, counsel notes the weaknesses in plaintiff's case, including the need to rely on “unaided memories” and lack of documentation for the rest periods, differences between plaintiff's diligent recordkeeping and that of less-diligent class members, the low value of the cellphone use policy, and the possibility that some employees received some but not all meal breaks. (Id.)
The Settlement Agreement proposes deducting from the $768,000 gross settlement amount the following:
(ECF No. 61-2 at ¶¶ 3, 7, 24; see also ECF No. 61-1 at ¶ 4 ().) The above deductions, if fully approved and assuming no proportional growth, would yield a Net Settlement Fund of $507,000. (See id.)
As proposed, the Net Settlement Fund would be distributed across all class members who do not opt out of the settlement, with 70% of the Net Fund being allocated to the Technologist Subclass and 30% allocated to the Assistant Subclass (given the disparity of pay between the two subclasses), on a pro-rata basis, as determined by the number of workweeks they worked as class members during the class period compared to the total number of workweeks. (Id. at ¶ 34.) The parties estimate the proposed settlement would result in an average recovery of $11,000 for each technologist and $3,000 for each assistant (which of course will vary depending on the number of workweeks each class member actually worked). (See ECF No. 61 at 9.)
The Settlement Agreement requires defendant to submit the class data list to the Settlement Administrator within 30 days of the court's preliminary approval, then 10 days thereafter for the Administrator to confirm the class members' addresses and mail out the Notice of Class Action Settlement. (ECF No. 61-2 at ¶¶ 38-40.) The Agreement then allows 45 days from the mailing of the Notice proposed for class members to: (a) do nothing and receive a payment, (b) request to be excluded from the settlement (“opt out”), (c) object to the terms of the settlement, or (d) dispute their dates of employment and estimated recovery amount listed. (Id. at ¶ 23; ECF No. 61-3 at 1-2 (the Class Notice).) Those who opt out will retain their right to sue but receive no payment under the settlement; those who remain in would ultimately receive their “Individual Settlement Payment” by check. (ECF No. 61-2 at ¶¶ 20-22, 36, 46; ECF No. 61-3.) The Settlement Agreement grants class members the right to opt out of or object to the Rule 23 settlement, but properly notes the PAGA settlement is effective with no such option. (ECF No. 61-2 at ¶ 36.) Additionally, as noted, class members may dispute their dates of employment or estimated workweeks. (Id. at ¶ 41.)
Plaintiff seeks: (A) provisional certification of the Rule 23 settlement class, her appointment as class representative, and appointment of her counsel as class counsel; (B) preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class action settlement; (C) approval of the PAGA settlement; and (D) appointment of the settlement administrator, approval of the notice to class members, and setting of a fairness hearing. (ECF Nos. 40, 61.) Defendant, as a party to the Agreement, does not oppose. (ECF No. 44.)
When parties seek approval of a class settlement before class certification, courts must analyze “both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) (“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class-or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement-may be settled,...
To continue reading
Request your trial