Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE URENA, an individual, on behalf of No. 1:18-cv-00517-NONE-EPG himself and others similarly situated, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES BE 14 GRANTED CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND 15 GROWERS ASSN., (Doc. Nos. 52, 60) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Jose Urena commenced this class-action lawsuit by filing a complaint against his 19 former employer, defendant Central California Almond Growers Assn., on April 13, 2018. (Doc. 20 No. 2.) This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against defendant for federal 21 and state wage-and-hour claims. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On June 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued supplemental findings and 24 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the class-action 25 settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs be granted. (Doc. No. 60.) Those findings 26 and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 26.) No objections have been 28 filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. 3 The magistrate judge’s initial findings and recommendations, issued on March 12, 2021, 4 reviewed the proposed settlement under the factors set forth in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 5 Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. No. 57.) On June 1, 2021, the Ninth 6 Circuit issued its decision in Briseno v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021), in which the 7 Ninth Circuit concluded that courts reviewing proposed settlement agreements cannot ignore the 8 factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), which was revised after Staton was 9 decided. The magistrate judge vacated the findings and recommendations in light of the decision 10 in Briseno (Doc. No. 58) and issued supplemental findings and recommendations on June 24, 11 2021, which considered the Rule 23 factors (Doc. No. 60). On August 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit 12 issued a decision in Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th 1170, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2021), which further clarified 13 that district courts must also consider the Staton factors—which it called the Churchill factors— 14 along with the revised ones set forth in Rule 23(e)(2). The initial findings and recommendations 15 analyzed the settlement under the Staton or Churchill factors, and the revised findings and 16 recommendations analyzed the settlement under the revised Rule 23(e)(2). (Doc. Nos. 57 & 60.) 17 The conclusion the magistrate judge reached was the same both times. The undersigned adopts 18 the analysis of the Staton factors from the magistrate judge’s initial findings and 19 recommendations and the Rule 23(e)(2) analysis from the supplemental findings and 20 recommendations. In sum, the undersigned concludes that the proposed settlement is fair, 21 reasonable, and adequate, and is approvable. 22 Accordingly, 23 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 24, 2021, (Doc. No. 60), are adopted in 24 part; 25 2. Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 52) is 26 GRANTED, as modified as follows: 27 Maximum Settlement Fund: $ 375,000.00 Class Representative Enhancements: $ 3,000.00 28 Class Counsel’s Fees: $ 109,374.00 1 Class Counsel’s Costs: $16,542.51 PAGA Payment: $11,250 (75% of $15,000) 2 Settlement Administration Costs: $10,441.45 Net Settlement Amount: $224,391.04 3 4 3. Approval of the settlement class is GRANTED and defined as: 5 all who are employed or have been employed by Defendant, in the State of California, and who have worked one or more shifts as a 6 nonexempt hourly agricultural employee, as defined by the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7 8-2001, and 29 U.S.C. § 1892(3) from April 13, 2014 through April 30, 2019. 8 9 4. Plaintiffs request for a class representative enhancement payment is GRANTED, as 10 modified, in the amount of $3,000.00; 11 5. Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No. 52-1) is GRANTED, as modified, in the 12 amount of $109,375.00; 13 6. Counsel’s request for costs is GRANTED, in the amount of $16,542.51; and 14 7. Within ninety days of the initial payments to class members being made, the parties are 15 ordered to file a joint status report concerning (1) the remaining amount in the net 16 settlement; (2) the feasibility of a waterfall payment structure; and (3) alternate proposed 17 cy pres recipients. 18 | IT Is SO ORDERED. _ 19 ji a @ Dated: _ September 22, 2021 See | ae 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28