Rojas v. Zaninovich, Case No.: 1:09-cv-0705-AWI - JLT

• Decision Date: 11 June 2015
• Docket Number: Case No.: 1:09-cv-0705-AWI - JLT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: SANTIAGOS ROJAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARKO ZANINOVICH, et al., Defendants.

SANTIAGOS ROJAS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MARKO ZANINOVICH, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 1:09-cv-0705-AWI - JLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 11, 2015

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT (Doc. 282)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (Doc. 284)

Plaintiffs Santiago Rojas, Josefino Ramirez, Catalina Robles, Juan Montes, Benito Espino, and Guillermina Perez seek final preliminary approval of a class settlement reached with Defendant Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc. (Doc. 282.) In addition, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the settlement fund and class representative enhancement payments. (Doc. 284.) Defendant Sunview Vineyards of California does not oppose these requests.

Because Plaintiffs carry their burden to demonstrate certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs' request for final approval of the settlement be GRANTED. In addition, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's request for attorney fees be GRANTED IN PART in the modified amount of $1,137,500; costs be GRANTED IN PART in the modified amount of $80,690.37; and Plaintiffs' request for enhancement payments be GRANTED IN PART in the modified amount of $4,000 per class representative.

Page 2

BACKGROUND

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 Marko Zaninovich, Inc. or Sunview Vineyards as defendants in the state court action.

On November 9, 2005, unnamed "Doe" plaintiffs initiated an action against table grape growers based in Kern County, including Marko Zaninovich, Inc.; Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc.; Castlerock; D.M. Camp & Sons; Guimarra Vineyards Corp.; El Rancho Farms; Stevco, Inc; and FAL, Inc.² (Doe v. D.M. Camp & Sons, Case No. 1:05-cv-1417-AWI-SMS, Doc. 2.) The "Doe" plaintiffs were unnamed former and current employees of the defendants. (Doe, Doc. 2.) In addition, on March 14, 2006, Catalina Robles, Juan Montes, Benito Espino, and Guillermina Perez filing a complaint against Sunview Vineyards. (See Robles, Case No. 1:06-cv-00288-AWI-SMS, Doc. 1.) On June 9, 2006, the Court found Doe and Robles were related because the cases involved the same defendant raised "identical questions of fact and law." (Robles, Doc. 21.)

Defendants in the Doe action, including Marko Zaninovich, Inc., and Sunview Vineyards, filed motions to dismiss the operative complaint, which were granted by the Court on March 31, 2008. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to sever the action and file amended pleadings against each defendant. (Doe, Doc. 168). The Third Amended Complaint against Marko Zaninovich, Inc. and Sunview Vineyards identified Santiago Rojas and Josefino Ramirez as plaintiffs on May 29, 2008. (Doe, Doc.

Page 3

171). On March 31, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to re-file their suit in a new case number within twenty days to finalize the severance. (Doe, Doc. 238).

On April 20, 2009, pursuant to the Court's order in Doe, Rojas and Ramirez filed a complaint alleging Sunview Vineyards was liable for: violations of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq; failure to pay wages; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; penalties under Labor Code § 2699, et seq; breach of contract; and violations of unfair competition law. (Doc. 1.) 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 6.)

On May 4, 2009, the Court observed the plaintiffs in Robles and Rojas were "suing Sunview Vineyards on largely the same legal grounds" (Doc. 7 at 1) and were represented by "two groups of allied attorneys." (Doc. 13 at 1.) The Rojas plaintiffs were represented by Mallison & Martinez; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld; and Milberg LLP; while the Robles plaintiffs were represented by McNicholas & McNicholas; Kingsley & Kingsley; Bush, Gottlieb, Singer, Lopez, Kohanski, Adelstein & Dickinson; and the Law Offices of Marcos Camacho. (See Doc. 13 at 1.) The Court consolidated Rojas and Robles, and Court arranged class counsel as follows:

1. Co-Lead Counsel³

¦ Mallison & Martinez
¦ McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP

2. Members of the Executive Committee⁴

¦ Bush, Gottlieb, Singer, Lopez, Kohanski, Adelstein, Dickinson
¦ Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
¦ Law Offices of Marcos Camacho
¦ Milberg, LLP
¦ Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld

Page 4

(Doc. 17 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: Santiago Rojas, Josefino Ramirez, Catalina Robles, Juan Montes, Benito Espino, and Guillermina Perez. (Doc. 18.)

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 17, 2011, seeking to certify several classes. However, the Court certified only two classes, defined as:

1. Sub-Minimum Hourly Wage Plus Piece Rate Class: All workers who were paid an hourly wage less than minimum wage (but greater than $0/hour) plus piece rate from 11/9/2001 to present.

2. Tray-Washing Class: All non-supervisory harvest fieldworkers employed by Sunview during the 2001 and 2002 harvests who took trays home overnight and washed those trays without compensation.

(Doc. 201 at 26.)

Sunview filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted in part and denied by the Court on March 29, 2013. (Docs. 202, 213.) The Court clarified the class definitions, and the claims upon which Plaintiffs were proceeding, as follows:

1. The Sub-Minimum Hourly Wage Plus Piece Rate Class is defined as "All workers who were paid an hourly wage less than minimum wage (but greater than $0/hour) plus piece rate from 11/9/2001 to present." Plaintiffs may represent this class with respect to the following claims: violation of rest period requirements (Labor Code §226.7 and Wage Order 14), violation of the minimum wage requirements (Labor Code §§1194 and 1194.2 and Wage Order 14), violation of AWPA (29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.), waiting time penalties (Labor Code §§201, 202 and 203), wage statement penalties (Labor Code §226), and violation of unfair competition law.

2. The Tray Washing Class is defined as "All non-supervisory harvest fieldworkers employed by Sunview during the 2001 and 2002 harvests who took trays home overnight and washed those trays without compensation." Plaintiffs may represent this class with respect to the following claims: violation of minimum wage requirements (Labor Code §§1194 and 1194.2 and Wage Order 14), violation of AWPA (29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.), waiting time penalties (Labor Code §§201, 202 and 203), wage statement penalties (Labor Code §226), and violation of unfair competition law.

(Doc. 213 at 9.) The Court approved a notice to the class members on June 26, 2013, which was to be distributed to all field workers employed "during the 2001 harvest." (Doc. 224.)

In the summer and fall of 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and "reached an agreement to fully and completely resolve and settle the action and signed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement documenting the terms of such resolution." (Doc. 255 at 3.)

Page 5

The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. (Docs. 266, 268.) The Court granted conditional certification of the Settlement Class, defined as: "All current and former non-exempt fieldworkers who were employed by Sunview in California at any time from November 9, 2001 through and including September 30, 2014." (Doc. 259-1 at 3, Settlement § I.E.) In addition, Plaintiffs Santiago Rojas, Josefino Ramirez, Catalina Robles, Juan Montes, Benito Espino, and Guillermina Perez were appointed the Class Representatives, and authorized to seek incentive payments up to $7,500 for their representation of the class. (Doc. 268 at 18- 19.) The law firms of Mallison & Martinez and Kingsley & Kingsley were appointed as Class Counsel, and authorized to seek fees that did not "exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount." (Id.) Finally, Rust Consulting was appointed the Claims Administrator. (Id. at 18.) On March 13, 2015, the Court approved the Class Notice Packet that conveyed this information to class members. (Doc. 272.)

On March 16, 2015, the Claims Administrator mailed the Class Notice Packet to 9,824 Class Members. (Doc. 282-2 at 3, Jenkins Decl. ¶ 10.) The Postal Service returned 2,420 of the packets to the Claims Administrator. (Doc. 294 at 2, Jenkins Supp. Decl. ¶ 3.) Rust sought new addresses and performed address traces to reserve the Notice Packets, but 1,173 packets remained undeliverable. (Id.) On May 11, 2015—after the parties realized 137 individuals received Benefit Forms that overstated the benefits they would receive—the Claims Administrator mailed Amended Benefit Forms and "advised the Class Members that they could submit an Exclusion Request Form and, if needed, the Amended Benefit Form, postmarked by June 4, 2015." (Doc. 282-2 at 5, Jenkins Decl. ¶...