Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00040792-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00040792-CU-OE-CTL DOUGAN VS CENTERPLATE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 06/03/2024

Plaintiff Kevin Dougan's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Kevin Dougan's unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED.

These motions seek final approval of the parties proposed $1,041,936.46 class action settlement on behalf of: 'all individuals currently or formerly employed by Centerplate in California as hourly, non-exempt employees during the Class Period [of August 2, 2018 through October 26, 2023] excluding those who previously released all of their respective Released Claims in their entirety against Released Parties, including by way of the prior class action settlement in the action entitled Rodrigo Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.

17-cv-03828-LHK'...' (ROA 35 – Order After Hearing, at p. 1:11-17; ROA 38 – Declaration of Nicholas Ferraro, at Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement § 1.3) The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. (ROA 35 – Order After Hearing; ROA 33 – Minute Order dated Feb. 9, 2024.) These motions are unopposed by both Defendants and Class Members.

The settlement class is certified for purposes of settlement. The class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, including the Gross Settlement Amount. The Gross Settlement Amount increased based on the settlement's escalator clause. Of the 2,901 notices distributed after the Court's order approving the notice process: only four notices were undeliverable; there was one (late) objection; zero disputes and eleven requests for exclusion. This motion is unopposed.

Class Counsel is awarded the requested $347,277.47, in attorney fees, which also increased in light of the triggering of the escalator clause, and $18,529.03 in litigation costs. The fee request is high when compared to the lodestar and its 2.879 multiplier and the services for the hours worked are not provided.

But the fee request is a (reduced) 33.33% contingency fee; the hourly rates are reasonable and substantiated; and the hours worked exclude administrative time. (Ferraro Decl., at ¶¶ 8-10; see also, Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503 (a percentage method may be used to calculate a reasonable fee in a common fund case such as this).) The fee request is also unopposed.

The costs sought are also reasonable, less than what was preliminarily requested and unopposed.

Plaintiff's service award of $10,000 is reasonable and substantiated. (ROA 40 - Declaration of Kevin Dougan, at ¶ 11; Ferraro Decl., at ¶ 16.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3088133  57 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOUGAN VS CENTERPLATE INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00040792-CU-OE-CTL The settlement administration costs in the amount of $22,000 for services provided by Phoenix Settlement Administrators are substantiated, reasonable and approved. (ROA 39 - Declaration of Taylor Mitzner, at ¶ 17.) The Court assessed Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538 and found the released claims appear to be appropriately tethered to the First Amended Complaint's factual allegations and do not extend beyond the scope of its allegations. (Amaro, supra.) The PAGA portion of the settlement also appears fair, reasonable and adequate in terms of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws. (Muniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.) Plaintiff provided the LWDA with notice of this case and the proposed settlement. (ROA 38 – Ferraro Decl., at ¶ 5.) The proposed distributions are also consistent with Labor Code section 2699's mandate.

As a whole, the Court finds the settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable. (See, e.g., Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800-01; Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 3.769(g).) The reasonableness of the settlement is further demonstrated by the fact that there is no opposition to these objections, only one late objection regarding mostly employment-related grievances and eleven requests to be excluded out of a class of 2,890 members.

For these reasons, the motions are GRANTED.

Concluding Orders The Court sets a status conference on December 6, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. in Department 70 to confirm the completion of the settlement process.

With regard to the proposed order on both motions, the Court will: (i) modify paragraph 2 to reflect the late objection included in the Supplemental Declaration of Nicholas Ferraro (ROA 46); (ii) modify the proposed order to reflect the status conference; and (ii) sign the proposed order. (ROA 43.) That order will be the Court's final order on the two motions.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3088133  57