Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00167, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00167    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: C

Ruvalcaba v. Amphenol Corporation

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00167

HEARING:  5/9/23 @ 1:30 PM

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Juan Ruvalcaba’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Juan Ruvalcaba moves for certification of class action settlement under California Rules of Court, rule 3.769.

Background 

Plaintiff Juan Ruvalcaba (Plaintiff) individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees filed a complaint against Amphenol Corporation for violations of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Proposed Settlement”). 

Legal Standard 

As a “fiduciary” of the absent class members, the trial court’s duty is to have before it sufficient information to determine if the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. The Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1151 [citing Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801, 1802 (“Dunk”)].)  

California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 governs settlements of class actions. Any party to a settlement agreement may submit a written notice for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion. California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(c).  

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement and dismissal of the class action because the rights of the class members, and even named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) 

In an effort to aid the Court in the determination of the fairness of the settlement, Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245 (“Wershba”), discusses factors that the Court should consider when testing the reasonableness of the settlement. 

A presumption of fairness exists where: 1) the settlement is reached through arm’s length bargaining; 2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently; 3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and 4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Id. at 245, citing Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1802.) The test is not the maximum amount plaintiff might have obtained at trial on the complaint but, rather, whether the settlement is reasonable under all of the circumstances. (Id. at 250.)  

In making this determination, the Court considers all relevant factors including “the strength of [the] plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 (“Kullar”), citing Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801.)  

“The fact that a proposed settlement may only amount to a fraction of the potential recovery does not, in and of itself, mean that the proposed settlement is grossly inadequate and should be disapproved.” (City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. (2d Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 448, 455; see also Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 [“[I]t is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlements. The proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved by the negotiators.”].)  

Discussion

Under the settlement, Defendants will pay $1,574,415.00 into a common fund with attorney’s fees up to 33 and 1/3 percent ($524,805.00) and litigation costs of up to $15,000, Named Plaintiff incentive award of $7,500, settlement administration of $10,094.00, and $157,441.50 for civil penalties under PAGA. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 10.) $118,081.13 of the civil penalties will be paid to the Labor & workforce Development Agency and the remaining $39,360.37 will be distribute pro rata between the members. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 10.) The remaining $859,574.50 (Net Settlement) will be distributed between the members based on their total weeks worked during the relevant period. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 10.) Any amounts not claimed will be forwarded to the California State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 10.)

The class consists of all individuals who worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee in California from November 8, 2020 to the preliminary approval order. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 11.) There are approximately 539 individuals in the class. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 11.)

Each class member’s settlement payment will be calculated and apportioned from the Net Settlement based on the number of weeks worked. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 12.) PAGA members settlement payment will be calculated and apportioned from the remaining PAGA penalty funds based on the number of weeks worked. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 12.) Each class member is estimate to receive $1,594.76 and each PAGA member is estimate to receive $73.02.

The settlement agreement is fair and reasonable because the parties engaged in sufficient discovery to determine the likely maximum value of the claims. Plaintiff provided the information obtained to an expert who opined that the maximum value of the case is approximately $2,669,787.10. ((Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 25.) The 58 percent recovery of the settlement amount versus the estimated potential exposure adequately accounts for the risks during litigation that plaintiffs do not recover the full amount for every claim asserted. Additionally, continued litigation to achieve the full estimated amount would likely involve pursuing the claims through trial which would significantly increase the costs of litigation as well as the risks. 

The proposed notice sets forth the settlement terms in plain language.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.