Castro v. Paragon Industries, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIZABETH CASTRO, individually, and No. 1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO on behalf of similarly situated members of 12 the general public and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California 13 Private Attorneys General Act, ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND 14 Plaintiff, DOCUMENTATION 15 v. (Doc. No. 9) 16 PARAGON INDUSTRIES, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 In connection with plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action 20 and collective action settlement which came on for hearing before the court on December 3, 2019, 21 the parties are directed to file supplemental briefing and documentation addressing the following 22 issues: 23 1. The fairness and reasonableness of including the employer’s share of payroll taxes 24 and other mandatory contributions as part of the Settlement Fund, and the 25 estimated value of the payroll taxes and other mandatory contributions, in both 26 absolute and percentage terms; 27 2. With respect to the FLSA collective action, additional information and detail 28 regarding the existence of a bona fide dispute (i.e. whether there are legitimate 1 questions about the existence and extent of defendant’s FLSA liability), including 2 the basis on which defendant “denies any liability of any kind associated with the 3 claims and allegations” and maintains that it has complied with the applicable laws 4 in all respects (Doc. No. 9 at 9); 5 3. Whether the estimated value of plaintiff's FLSA claims includes liquidated 6 damages, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249, 7 1259 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Double damages are the norm; single damages the 8 exception[, for FLSA claims].’”); 9 4. Additional documentation supporting the valuation of each of plaintiff's claims, 10 including how the parties initially arrived at the potential value of each claim 11 (before discounts); 12 5. The reasonableness of an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount up to 35% of the 13 Settlement Fund under the circumstances of this case and in light of the results 14 obtained; 15 6. An estimate of plaintiffs attorneys’ fees if calculated under the lodestar method 16 and assurance that documentation will be submitted with the motion for final 17 approval allowing the court to conduct a lodestar cross-check at that time; 18 7. The fairness and validity of the proposed FLSA collective waiver, see Barrentine 19 v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981) (“FLSA rights 20 cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived because this would nullify the 21 purposes of the statute and thwart the legislative policies it was designed to 22 effectuate.”) (internal quotations omitted). 23 The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues within fourteen (14) days from the 24 | date of service of this order. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *° Dated: _ December 5, 2019 Yh AL 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28