Justin Lopez v. Americold Logistics, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and No. 1:20-cv-00308-NONE-EPG others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING 14 JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a RELEASE OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS, AND 15 Delaware company, REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF CLASS CLAIMS 16 Defendant. (Doc. No. 17) 17 18 19 The court has received and reviewed the parties’ joint stipulation of settlement (Doc. No. 20 17), which, among other things, requests a judicial finding that the settlement of plaintiff’s 21 potential individual claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are fair and 22 reasonable. This matter is related to a separate wage and hour class action, Contreras v. 23 Americold Logistics LLC, No. 19-cv-641-GW-SHKx (C.D. Cal.), in which plaintiff was a 24 putative class member but chose to opt out. (See Doc. No. 17 ¶¶ 3–8.) In this case, the total 25 settlement calls for defendant to pay $16,000 to resolve all pending claims as follows: (1) $1,000 26 shall constitute consideration for plaintiff’s release of his potential FLSA claims; (2) $6,000 shall 27 constitute consideration for all other state law claims; and (3) $9,000 shall be paid in the form of a 28 check made payable to plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 12.) 1 The court cannot properly evaluate the proposed settlement on the present record. The 2 | court refers the parties to a recent order issued by the undersigned in a similar, albeit not identical, 3 | matter involving the stipulated settlement of an individual FLSA claim. Vasquez v. Crane 4 | Cartage, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00657-DAD-SKO, 2020 WL 4547444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020). The 5 || present record in this case does not provide the court with the information needed to engage in the 6 || requisite analysis. For example, counsel provides a single paragraph explaining that a $1,000 7 | payment for the FLSA claim is fair because $6,000 is provided to settle the state law claims. (See 8 | Doc. No. 17-149.) Yet counsel offers no basis for the court to find that such a ratio is fair, let 9 | alone that a $6,000 settlement of the state law claims is fair and reasonable under the 10 | circumstances relevant to plaintiff. Nor have the parties even attempted to explain why the 11 | attorney’s fee award anticipated under their settlement agreement is fair and reasonable under the 12 | circumstances. 13 Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the parties are directed to 14 | file a supplement to their stipulation that briefly directs the court to information that will enable it 15 | to perform its duties. To the extent any such information is contained within the records of the 16 | Contreras case, the parties may direct the court to those materials but must do so with specific 17 | document and page references. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ June 9, 2021 Vila A Drag 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28