Wright v. Frontier Management LLC ( 2023 )

Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) 1 || Ori Edelstein (SBN 268145) Michelle S. Lim (SBN 315691) 2 || SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3 || 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 4 || Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 5 || ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com 6 || mlim@schneiderwallace.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs, and the Putative g Classes and Collective UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD 12 || HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 || Situated, MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 14 Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT 15 VS. Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Date: February 28, 2023 16 || FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, Time: 1:30 p.m. FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and GH | Gh - 6. 14 Floor 17 || SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN ° ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING, Filed: September 6, 2019 18 Defendants. Trial Date: None 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] The Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs 2 || Joshua Wright, Loretta Stanley, Haley Quam, and Aiesha Lewis, Plaintiffs in this action (the 3 || “Action”), came on for hearing regularly in Courtroom 6, 14" Floor, of the above captioned court, 4 || the Honorable John A. Mendez presiding. Defendants in the Action do not oppose the motion. 5 Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action 6 || Settlement (“Motion”) seeking final Court approval of the parties’ settlement of this Action on the 7 || terms set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, filed at ECF 85-1 8 || (‘Settlement Agreement”), and having reviewed and considered the terms and conditions of the 9 || proposed settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the terms of which are 10 || incorporated in this Order; and no opposition to the Motion having been submitted; and the Court 11 || having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein, and venue being proper 12 || before the Court; and due and proper notice of the Motion having been provided; and upon the 13 || hearing on the Motion and after due deliberation, and good and sufficient cause appearing therefore; 14 THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS: 15 1. Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not otherwise identified herein have the 16 || meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement. 17 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the Rule 23 State Class Members and 18 || Collective Members asserted in this proceeding and over all Parties to the action. 19 3. The parties litigated this case for over three years. During the course of the litigation, 20 || the Court became very familiar with the claims, defenses, competing facts and legal theories 21 || presented by the parties, as well as the work of counsel in presenting them. Among other things, 22 || the Court considered and decided multiple pleadings motions and discovery disputes. These 23 || motions presented complex, difficult and sometimes novel issues for the parties to develop and the 24 || Court to resolve. They also evidenced that the parties conducted extensive discovery, depositions, 25 || and investigation to support and vet their positions during the course of the case. Through lengthy 26 || arms-length negotiations and this Court’s guidance, the parties have prepared and revised the 27 || Settlement Agreement at issue. 28 ] 4. With this history, the Court has now considered Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval 2 || of the proposed settlement by weighing the strength of the case; the risk, expense, complexity, and 3 || likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; 4 || the amount offered in settlement; and the extent of discovery completed, among other factors. See 5 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); see also In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 6 || (Oth Cir. 2011); Lusk v. Five Guys Enters. LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00762-AWI-EPG, 2022 U.S. Dist. 7 || LEXIS 12812, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2022). The Court concludes based on these factors, as well 8 || as the terms of the settlement itself and the history of the lengthy arms-length negotiations that 9 || resulted in an agreement of these terms, that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” 10 || Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 5. The Court also finds, for purposes of settlement, that the requirements of Rule 23(a) 12 || of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied for the State Classes of California, Illinois, 13 || Oregon, and Washington: (1) the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is 14 || impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class; (3) the claims or defenses 15 || of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class Members; and (4) Plaintiffs will fairly 16 || and adequately protect the interests of the Class Members. 17 a. Numerosity: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure because there are approximately over 1,000 class members per 19 State Class, making joinder impractical. Additionally, these class members are 20 ascertainable through Defendants’ records. 21 b. Common Questions: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(2) because the 22 Class claims turn upon answers to overarching common questions regarding 23 Defendants’ policies and procedures that are capable of class-wide resolution for 24 settlement purposes. The Court finds that for settlement purposes, the common 25 questions raised by Class Members, include: whether, inter alia, State Class 26 Members were required to — and should be paid for — unrecorded off the clock 27 work, including time spent conducting pre-shift and post-shift work; whether 28 carrying and/or responding to calls during meal and rest breaks were required and 1 renders such breaks on-duty, untimely, or cut short; and whether State Class 2 Members were required to purchase items for work and should be reimbursed for 3 such purchases. 4 c. Typicality: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(3) for settlement purposes 5 because the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the 6 State Classes in that all their claims are based on the same Defendants’ policies 7 and legal theories, and Plaintiffs were subject to and allege they were harmed by 8 the same polices as other State Class Members. 9 d. Adequacy: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(4) because the named 10 Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives in that they do not have any conflicts 11 with the class, are committed to representing the interests of the members of the 12 class, and are represented by counsel with extensive experience and expertise in 13 class action litigation, including wage-and-hour class actions. 14 6. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the requirements of Rule 15 || 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met because there are common questions of 16 || fact and law regarding Defendants’ policies and procedures, including those identified above, that 17 || in the context of a settlement, predominate over any individual issues. Moreover, a class action 18 || settlement is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 19 || controversy because the injury suffered by each member of the Class, while meaningful on an 20 || individual basis, is not of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of individual actions against 21 || Defendants economically feasible, and the class action settlement device provides the benefits of 22 || single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 23 7. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are within the range of approval, 24 || pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law. The Court finds 25 || that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable as to the State Class Members when balanced 26 || against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to class certification, liability and 27 || damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) significant discovery, investigation, research, and 28 || litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably 1 || evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement at this time will avoid substantial costs, delay, 2 || and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the litigation; and (4) the proposed 3 || Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive negotiations 4 || between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith 5 || with respect to the California Class, the Illinois Class, the Oregon Class, and the Washington Class. 6 8. For purposes of settlement only, the California Class, the Illinois Class, the Oregon 7 || Class, and the Washington Class are certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal 8 |} Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action on behalf of the Classes, defined as follows: 9 a. The California Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, 10 or alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt 11 employee in the State of California between September 6, 2015 and March 1, 12 2022. 13 b. The Illinois Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or 14 are alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt 15 employee in the state of Illinois between July 8, 2017 and March 1, 2022. 16 c. The Oregon Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or 17 are alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt 18 employee in the state of Oregon between July 8, 2014 and March 1, 2022. 19 d. The Washington Class means all persons who are employed, have been 20 employed, or are alleged to have been employed in the Action by Defendants as 21 a non-exempt employee in the state of Washington between July 8, 2017 and 22 March 1, 2022. 23 9. For the purpose of facilitating the settlement, the Court designates Plaintiffs Joshua 24 || Wright, Loretta Stanley, Aiesha Lewis, and Haley Quam, as the Class Representatives. Also, for 25 || the purpose of facilitating the settlement, the Court designates Carolyn H. Cottrell, Ori Edelstein, 26 || and Michelle S. Lim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as Class Counsel. 27 28 1 10. The Court finds that no class member has objected to the settlement or the motion for 2 || attorneys’ fees and costs, that no class member has disputed his or her workweeks for calculating 3 || the settlement awards, and that seven class members have requested to opt out of the settlement. 4 11. The Court finds that due and proper notice of the Settlement was provided to all State 5 || Class Members, including notice of the right to object to the proposed Settlement, the right to object 6 || to Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs, the nght to appear in person or by 7 || counsel at the Fairness Hearing and be heard and the right to Opt Out. The Court finds that the 8 || notice provided was the best means of providing notice to the Class Members under the 9 || circumstances. The Court further finds that it was due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and 10 || the Fairness Hearing to all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement or the 11 || Fairness Hearing, in full compliance with the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil 12 || Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), (e)(1), and (h)(1). The Court further finds that the Notice of Settlement fully 13 || and accurately informed the State Class Members of all material elements of the proposed 14 || Settlement, of their right to be excluded from the Settlement, and of their right and opportunity to 15 || object to the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court determines that all State Class Members, excluding 16 || the seven State Class Members who timely and properly executed a request for exclusion, are bound 17 || by this Order and the Judgment. 18 12. The Court hereby makes final its earlier conditional certification of the FLSA 19 || Settlement Collective, in accordance with the Settlement, for purposes of this Settlement only. The 20 || FLSA Settlement Collective is defined as follows: “all individuals who have submitted Opt-In 21 || Consent Forms in the Federal Action and worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees 22 || between March 13, 2017 and March 1, 2022.” 23 13. The Court hereby confirms its approval of the terms and conditions contained in the 24 || Settlement as to the FLSA Collective as set forth in its August 29, 2022 Order. See ECF 89, 9 4- 25 || 6. The Court has already found that the terms of the Settlement represent a fair and reasonable 26 || resolution of a bona fide dispute, and are within the range of possible approval, pursuant to the 27 || FLSA and applicable law. 28 ] 14. The Court finds that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable as to the 2 || Collective when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to collective 3 || decertification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) significant discovery, 4 || investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this 5 || time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement at this time will avoid 6 || substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the 7 || litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and 8 || noncollusive negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement was 9 || entered into in good faith with respect to the Collective. 10 15. The Court further finds that the Notice of Settlement fully and accurately informed 11 || the Collective Members of all material elements of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court 12 || determines that all Collective Members are bound by this Order and the Judgment. 13 16. The Court approves the PAGA Payment of $95,000 for Plaintiff Wright’s claims 14 || pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004, to be distributed by the Settlement 15 || Administrator as follows: 75%, or $71,250, to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency 16 || CLWDA”), and 25%, or $23,750, to the Aggrieved Employees. 17 17. By separate order, the Court finds that the award of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and 18 || costs is fair, reasonable and appropriate, and approves the service awards as well. 19 18. The Court approves payment to the Settlement Administrator, SSI Settlement 20 || Services Inc. (“SSI”), of $149,400.00 out of the Gross Settlement Amount, based on the declaration 21 || of Aisha Lange verifying the administrator’s reasonable costs in fulfilling the settlement 22 || administration in this case. 23 19. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and 24 || adequate and are hereby approved on a final basis pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 |} 23(e). Specifically, the Court approves in full the Settlement Agreement. The Parties shall comply 26 || with and implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms. 27 20. The Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the 28 || implementation of the Settlement Agreement or this Order. ] 21. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court hereby approves following 2 || implementation schedule: : 4 ||| Effective Date The latest of the following dates: (1) if there are one or more objections to the settlement 5 that are not subsequently withdrawn, then the date after the expiration of time for filing a 6 notice of appeal of the Court’s Final Approval Order, assuming no appeal or request for 7 review has been filed; (11) if there is a timely objection and appeal by one or more g objectors, then the date after such appeal or appeals are terminated (including any requests 9 for rehearing) resulting in the final judicial approval of the Settlement; or (111) if there are 10 no timely objections to the settlement, or if one or more objections were filed but 11 subsequently withdrawn before the date of Final Approval, then the first business day 12 after the Court’s order granting Final Approval of the Settlement is entered 13 Deadline for SSI to calculate the employer Within 5 business days after final Settlement 14 ||| Share of taxes and provide Defendants with the | Award calculations are approved total amount of Defendants’ Payroll Taxes 15 |!! Deadline for SSI to make payments under the | Within 30 days after the Effective Date or as Settlement to Participating Individuals, the soon as reasonably practicable 16 LWDA, Class Representatives, Plaintiffs’ 7 counsel, and itself Deadline for SSI to send a reminder letter via | 90 days before the check-cashing deadline 18 ||| U.S. mail and, if applicable, email to those Participating Individuals that have not cashed 19 ||| their settlement check 20 ||| Deadline for SSI to place a call to Participating | 60 days before the check-cashing deadline Individuals that have not cashed their 21 settlement check, to promptly attempt to obtain valid mailing addresses for such individuals, 22 ||| and to send second checks to such individuals 24 Deadline for SSI to provide written Within 10 business days after the check certification of completion of administration of | cashing period 5 the Settlement to counsel for all Parties and the Court 26 ||| Deadline for SSI to tender uncashed check As soon as practicable after check-cashing funds to cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work or | deadline 27 ||| redistribute such uncashed funds to 28 Participating Individuals who cashed their _—— == : 4 22. The Court further ORDERS that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings 5 in the above-captioned Action, except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement, are stayed, 6 and all deadlines are vacated. 7 23. The Court will separately enter a Judgment and Dismissal of this Action with g prejudice consistent with the terms of this Order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] 12 13 Dated: March 9, 2023 /s/ John A. Mendez 14 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 15 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28