Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: BC707670, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: BC707670, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC707670 Hearing Date: May 13, 2025 Dept: 9

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Sanchez, et al. v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.

Case Number: BC707670

Hearing: May 13, 2205

TENTATIVE RULING

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The essential terms are:

· The Total Settlement Amount (“TSA”) is $355,000, non-reversionary. (¶4.1)

· The Net Settlement Amount is the TSA minus the following:

§ $118,333.33 (1/3 of the TSA) for attorney fees to Class Counsel (¶4.2.2);

§ $107,664.32 for litigation costs to Class Counsel (Ibid.);

§ $7,500 service payments per Plaintiff for 2 named Plaintiffs for a total of $15,000 (¶4.2.1); and

§ $11,000 for settlement administration costs to the Claims Administrator. (¶4.2.3)

· Defendant shall pay Employer’s share of the payroll taxes on the taxable portion of the settlement payments separately from the GSA. (¶3.1)

· Plaintiffs’ release of Defendants from claims described herein.

No later than May 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a single document that constitutes both a proposed Order and Judgment, consistent with this ruling containing all requisite terms, including the class definition, release language, and a statement of the number and identity of class members who requested exclusion. {At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the proposed Order and Judgment should identify the thirty-two (32) individuals who opted-out of the Class certified by the Court by way of its rulings and orders entered on July 13, 2023 and August 1, 2023. (Settlement Agreement, ¶1.9)}

By July 11, 2025, Class Counsel must give notice to the class members pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.771(b) (which may be effected by posting on the Administrator’s website if consistent with the parties’ Class Action Settlement) and to the LWDA, if applicable, pursuant to Labor Code §2699 (1)(3).

By September 11, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of the settlement funds.

The Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for September 18, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour class action. Defendant supplies and services commercial dishwashers to restaurants and other customers. Its headquarters is based in Mountain View, California. Plaintiffs Christian Sanchez and Frankie Escobar are former employees of Defendant.

On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff Christian Sanchez (“Plaintiff Sanchez”) commenced the Action by filing a Class Action Complaint for Damages (“Initial Complaint”), Case No. BC707670 in Los Angeles County Superior Court (“Sanchez Action”), alleging causes of action against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods and associated premiums, failure to provide compliant rest periods and associated premiums, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to keep complete or accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”).

On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Sanchez filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (“FAC”) alleging causes of actions for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods and associated premiums, failure to provide compliant rest periods and associated premiums, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On April 18, 2019, Eddie Roblero filed his Class Action Complaint, Case No. 19STCV13461 in Los Angeles County Superior Court (“Roblero Action”) alleging causes of action against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse for business expenses, and violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On July 16, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order granting Plaintiff Leave to File a Proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages adding Frankie Escobar as a plaintiff and proposed class representative in the Action.

On January 6, 2021, the Court consolidated the Sanchez Action and Roblero Action.

On December 30, 2021, the Parties filed an updated Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order granting Plaintiff Leave to File a Proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages adding a Frankie Escobar as a plaintiff and proposed class representative in the Action and adding Eddie Roblero and his allegations into the Sanchez Action. Based on the Stipulation, the Court granted Plaintiff Sanchez leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2022 (“SAC”).

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification (“MCC”). On July 13, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ MCC, certifying the following class (together, “Certified Class”): All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from May 30, 2014 up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may optout after being provided notice of certification. The Court’s July 13, 2023 ruling and order also certified a Regular Rate Subclass, Meal Period Subclass, Rest Period Subclass, Meal Period Premiums Subclass, Rest Period Premiums Subclass, On Premises Rest Break Subclass, Unreimbursed Business Expenses Subclass. On August 1, 2023, the Court approved the Class Certification Notice and modified its ruling on July 13, 2023, to certify the following additional subclasses: Final Wages Not Timely Paid Subclass, Off-the-Clock Work Subclass, and UCL Subclass.

On May 12, 2023, Eddie Roblero filed a Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff Eddie Roblero. On May 17, 2023, the Court entered the Order Granting Request for Dismissal of Plaintiff Eddie Roblero, thereby dismissing Eddie Roblero’s individual claims with prejudice.

On August 31, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases concerning the Sanchez Action and an action entitled Adrian Perez v. Auto-Chlor Systems of Washington, Inc., et. al., Los Angeles County Superior County, Case No. 23STCV17927 (“Perez Action”). On September 11, 2023, the Court issued its determination that the Sanchez Action and Perez Action are not related.

On October 8, 2020, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation presided over by Warren Jackson, Esq., whose continued assistance with settlement negotiations led to this Agreement to settle the Action. A fully executed long form settlement was filed with the Court on May 10, 2024 attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Joanna Ghosh (“Ghosh Supp. Decl.”) ISO Preliminary Approval.

On July 16, 2024, the court issued a checklist of items for the parties to address and continued preliminary approval. In response, on November 12, 2024, counsel filed a fully executed Amended Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 2 to the Further Supplemental Declaration of Joanna Ghosh (“Ghosh 2^nd Supp. Decl.”) ISO Preliminary Approval.

Preliminary Approval was granted on December 19, 2024 Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered. (See Declaration of Kaylie O’Connor (“O’Connor Decl.”).)

Now before the Court is the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement.

CLASS DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL MONETARY TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

· Settlement Class” and “Settlement Class Members” are all current and former hourly “Class Member(s)” or “Class” means the class certified by the Court by way of its rulings and orders entered on July 13, 2023 and August 1, 2023, which consists of all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked in California during the Class Period, who were included in the Class Data, excluding the thirty-two (32) individuals who opted-out of the Class certified by the Court by way of its rulings and orders entered on July 13, 2023 and August 1, 2023. (Settlement Agreement, ¶1.9)

o “Class Period” means the period from May 30, 2014 through the end date used by Defendant to compile the Initial Class Data that Defendant provided to the Administrator on or about August 4, 2023 and to compile the Supplemental Class Data that Defendant provided to the Administrator on or about October 5, 2023. (¶1.12)

§ There are 401 Class Members who worked a total of 41,014.41 Workweeks during the Class Period. (O’Connor Decl., ¶14.)

· The Total Settlement Amount (“TSA”) is $355,000, non-reversionary. (¶4.1)

· The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($84,750) is the TSA minus the following:

§ Up to $124,250 (35%) for attorney fees (¶4.2.2);

§ Up to $115,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

§ Up to $20,000 for Service Payments to the Named Plaintiffs ($10,000 each) (¶4.2.1); and

§ Up to $11,000 for settlement administration costs. (¶4.2.3)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks: The Administrator will void all checks not cashed, deposited, or otherwise negotiated within 180 calendar days. (¶5.3.1) The Administrator shall transmit the funds remaining from Individual Settlement Payment checks, after the checks are voided, to the State Controller’s Office Unclaimed Property Division in the name of the Settlement Class Member(s) at issue and in the amount(s) of their respective Individual Settlement Payment(s). (¶5.3.3)

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A. Does a presumption of fairness exist?

The Court preliminarily found in its Order on December 19, 2024 that the presumption of fairness should be applied. No facts have come to the Court’s attention that would alter that preliminary conclusion. Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness as set forth in the preliminary approval order.

B. Is the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable?

The settlement was preliminarily found to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Notice has now been given to the Class.

Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

Number of class members: 401 (O’Connor Decl., ¶4.)

Number of notice packets mailed: 401 (Id. at ¶6.)

Number of undeliverable notices: 3 (Id. at ¶8.)

Number of opt-outs: 0 (Id. at ¶8.)

Number of objections: 0 (Id. at ¶9.)

Number of participating class members: 401 (Id. at ¶12.)

Average individual payment: $244.39 (Id. at ¶14.)

Highest estimated payment: $1,245.60 (Ibid.)

Lowest estimated payment: $0.36 (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the notice was given as directed and conforms to due process requirements. Given the reactions of the Class Members to the proposed settlement and for the reasons set for in the Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs

Class Counsel request $118,333.33 (33%) in fees and litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $107,664.32 to Class Counsel. (Motion ISO Final, 1:3-10.) The Settlement provides for attorney's fees up to $124,250 (35%) and costs of $115,000 (Settlement Agreement, ¶4.2.2); the class was provided notice of the requested awards and none objected. (O’Connor Decl., ¶9 and Exhibit A thereto.)

“Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method.” (Wershba at 254.) Here, class counsel requests attorney fees using the percentage method. (Motion ISO Final, pgs. 17-29.)

The fee request represents 33% of the gross settlement amount which is the average generally awarded in class actions. See In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 (“Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.”).

Counsel has provided the following lodestar information:

FIRM	HOURS	RATE	TOTAL
Lawyers for Justice, PC	946.70	$850	$804,695
TOTAL	946.70		$804,695

(Madoyan Decl. ISO Final, ¶¶13-15 and Exhibit A thereto.)

Therefore, Class Counsel has spent a total of 946.70 for a total loadstar of $804,695, resulting in a negative multiplier to reach the fee request. (Ibid.)

As for costs, class counsel has incurred costs of $107,664.32. (Madoyan Decl. ISO Final, ¶21 and Exhibit B thereto.) Class Counsel is requesting $107,664.32 in costs, which is less than the settlement cap of $115,000. (Ibid.) The costs in this case include, but are not limited to, costs associated the filing/service costs ($1,435), statistical data experts ($36,837.50), court reporters/videographers ($34,749), and mediation costs ($14,250). (Ibid.) The costs seem reasonable and necessary to litigation. (Ibid.)

Based on the above, the Court hereby awards $118,333.33 (1/3) for fees and $107,664.32 for litigation costs.

D. Incentive Awards to Class Representatives

The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $20,000 for incentive awards to the class representatives ($10,000 each). (Settlement Agreement, ¶4.2.1.)

Plaintiff Sanchez represents that his contributions to this litigation include spending at least 57 hours on the following: obtaining counsel, gathering documents, reviewing documents, answering counsel’s questions, developing a strategy, identifying witnesses, reviewing discovery, preparing for deposition, being deposed, reviewing the deposition transcript, and reviewing the settlement agreement. (Declaration of Plaintiff Sanchez, ¶¶2-7.)

Plaintiff Escobar represents that his contributions to this litigation include spending at least 54 hours on the following: obtaining counsel, gathering documents, reviewing documents, answering counsel’s questions, developing a strategy, identifying witnesses, preparing for deposition, being deposed, reviewing the deposition transcript, and reviewing the settlement agreement. (Declaration of Plaintiff Escobar, ¶¶2-7.)

The court notes that these efforts are commendable, but not exceptional. Based on the above, the Court hereby grants enhancement awards in the amount of $7,500 per Plaintiff for a total of $15,000.

E. Claims Administration Costs

The claims administrator requests $11,000 for the costs of administering the settlement. (O’Connor Decl., ¶15.) This is equal to the $11,000 maximum amount estimated in the Settlement Agreement; (Settlement Agreement, ¶4.2.3); and disclosed in the notice to class members. Based on all the work performed by the Claims Administrator, the Court hereby awards costs in the requested amount.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER