Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARISOL GOMEZ, individually and on ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-1489 JLT BAM behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 12 ) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING TO SUPPORT 13 ) THE REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. ) CLASS COUNSEL NO LATER THAN 14 ) SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 J. JACOBO FARM LABOR ) 15 CONTRACTOR, INC., ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 18 Marisol Gomez asserts J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. violated the federal Agricultural 19 Workers Protection Act and California’s wage and hour laws. (See generally Doc. 95.) Plaintiff now 20 seeks preliminary approval of a settlement reached in this action. (Docs. 190, 202-2.) As part of the 21 Settlement, the parties agreed “Class Counsel” include “Mallison & Martinez, and Martinez, 22 Aguilasocho & Lynch.” (Doc. 202-2 at 3, Settlement § I.B.) 23 To certify the Settlement Class, the Court must find proposed counsel satisfy the adequacy 24 requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 25 Toward that end, the Court evaluates whether proposed counsel “have any conflicts of interest” with 26 the Settlement Class members, and if counsel will “prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the 27 class.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Further, 28 the Court considers the adequacy of representation—including whether counsel “are experienced and eee Ee IEEE II EID USE RE 1 || competent”—to determine whether proposed settlement terms are fair and reasonable. See Fed. R. C 2 || P. 23(e)(2); see also Cottle v. Plaid Inc., 240 F.R.D. 356, 376 (N.D. Cal. 2021); Bowen v. Jea Senior 3 || Living Health & Welfare Ben, Plan LLC, 2023 WL 8527732, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023) (same). 4 Although Gomez filed declaratory evidence related to the experience and qualifications of 5 || counsel, the evidence only discusses the attorneys at Mallison & Martinez. (See Doc. 190-2 at □□□□ 6 || 3-10; Doc. 202-2 at 2-7, 3-10.) The Court lacks any information concerning the attorneys at 7 || Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch.'! Without such evidence, the Court is unable to determine whether 8 || Mario Martinez and Edgar Aguilasocho have any conflicts with the Settlement Class, or whether thes 9 || attorneys will “vigorously” prosecute the claims on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court is also 10 || unable to conclude the attorneys at Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch “are experienced and competent’ 11 || without information regarding their professional experience. Thus, the Court requires additional 12 || information to support Plaintiffs request to appoint Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch as counsel for tl 13 || Settlement Class. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. Plaintiff SHALL file supplemental briefing and/or declaratory evidence to support her 16 request to appoint Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch as Class Counsel for the Settlement 17 Class no later than the close of business on September 20, 2024. 18 2. Plaintiff is advised the failure to comply with the order will result in the denial of the requ 19 to appoint Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch as counsel for the Settlement Class. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 |! Dated: _ September 16, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan 23 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 "The Court acknowledges that Judge Ishii previously appointed Mario Martinez and Edgar Aguilasocho as class counsel 28 || Court did not address the alequacy of these altomeys, (Jd. at 19-20.) Even at that time, the Court lacked any information concerning Mr. Martinez and Mr. Aguilasocho. (See generally Doc. 108.)