Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00167, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00167, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00167 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: C

Juan Ruvalcaba vs. Amphenol Corp.

Case No.: 22NWCV00167

Hearing Date: 11/28/23 at 10:30am

Tentative Ruling

(1) The Court grants final approval of the Settlement;

(2) The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement;

(3) The Court appoints Plaintiff as Class representative for settlement purposes;

(4) The Court appoints Class Counsel as class counsel for settlement purposes;

(5) The Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;

(6) Class Counsel is awarded $524,805.00 in attorneys’ fees and $9,662.02 in attorneys’ costs;

(7) Class Representative Plaintiff is awarded an enhancement payment of $7,500.00;

(8) The claims administrator, Simpluris, is awarded $10,094.00 in costs.

This matter is set for a non-appearance case review regarding judgment on November 28, 2023.

Background

Plaintiff Juan Ruvalcaba (herein “Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”) seeks final approval of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”) which covers 528 Class Members. The Class consists of individuals who are, or have been, employed by Defendants Amphenol Corporation, Amphenol Thermometrics, Inc., Amphenol DC Electronics, Inc., Amphenol Nelson-Dunn Technologies, Inc., and Holland Electronics, LLC (herein “Defendants”) any time during the Settlement Class Period. The Settlement Class Period means, and refers to, the time from November 8, 2020, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, which was May 10, 2023.

Defendants operate as producers of electronic and fiber optic connectors, cable and interconnect systems such as coaxial cables. Plaintiff Juan Ruvalcaba worked for Defendants from May 2021 until on or about July 26, 2021 as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Plaintiff worked as a facilities technician, responsible for the operation and maintenance of buildings and equipment.

On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”), filed a representative action complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking penalties against Defendants for several alleged violations of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. First, he contended Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, resulting in unpaid wage violations. Next, Plaintiff alleged meal and rest break violations, and he contended Defendants did not always compensate the aggrieved employees for documented violations. Other violations occurred as well for missed, short, and late breaks. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendants had rounding and auto-deduct policies which resulted in unpaid wage claims for their employees. Plaintiff also alleged that he and the class members had to use their personal cell phones for business purposes, but they did not receive any reimbursement. Lastly, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’ wage statements, as a derivative violation, were not legally compliant and inaccurate. Plaintiff also alleged a Labor Code section 203 violation based on and deriving from these above-mentioned claims.

The April 11, 2023 Class Action and PAGA complaint included class claims for (i) failure to pay straight and overtime compensation in violation of Labor Code sections 223, 510, 1194, and 1199; (ii) failure to pay minimum wages; (iii) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (iv) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section226; (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records in violation of Labor Code sections 226 and the IWC Wage Orders; (vi) failure to timely pay earned wages in violation of Labor Code sections 204 and 210; (vii) failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Labor Code section 203; (viii) failure to provide rest breaks; (ix) failure to reimburse business expenses; (x) failure to pay reporting time pay; (xi) failure to pay split shift wages; (xii) failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; (xiii) unlawful business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.; and (xiv) individual liability for labor code violations; and penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) Labor Code §2698, et seq.

Defendants have at all times denied Plaintiff’s allegations and claim that they maintained their meal break and payroll policies and procedures in compliance with California law, they provided the class members with required meal and rest breaks, they paid Plaintiff and the class members all wages due, and they did not require any use of personal cell phones, nor was such use necessary.

The Court incorporates by reference the background of the action and the summary of the Settlement as set forth in its May 10, 2023 Ruling preliminarily approving the settlement. (5-10-23 Preliminary Approval Order.) The Court notes the Settlement at issue in the instant hearing for final approval is the same Settlement the Court previously considered in granting preliminary approval. The parties now move for final approval of the proposed class action Settlement.

Discussion

A. Approval of Class Action Settlement

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. (CRC 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.)

B. Fairness of the Settlement Agreement

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, 244-45 (“Wershba”) discusses factors 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. (Wershba at 245.) 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. (Wershba 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”).)

“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.”].)

C. Terms of the Settlement Agreement

For purposes of settlement only, the parties stipulate to certification of the Settlement Class defined as: “all current and former non-exempt employees who are or were employed by Defendants in California from November 8, 2020, to the earlier of either June 21, 2023, or the date of the court's preliminary approval of this class action settlement which was May 10, 2023.” (Motion p. 6.; Settlement ¶ I, c). There are 539 Class Members. (Motion, pg. 6.)

The Maximum Settlement Amount of payment by Defendants (“Gross Fund Value”) of $1,574,415.50 includes payments to class members (“Net Fund”), the PAGA penalty payment [25% to be paid to class members as part of the Net Fund, 75% to be paid to the LWDA], Court approved attorneys’ fees and costs, the approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff for his service as a class representative, and approved Administration Costs. (Motion, pgs.7-8,.) ) The breakdown of the settlement payment in determining the Net Fund (amount to be distributed to the class, i.e., $864,912.02), is the Gross Fund Value ($1,574,415.50) minus:

· $7,500.00 for class representative payment to Plaintiff;

· $524,805.00 in attorney fees;

· $9,663.02 in attorney costs [the Court notes this amount is less than the “up to $15,000.00” preliminarily approved by the Court];

· $10,094.00 in settlement administration costs [the Court notes this amount is less than the “up to $25,000.00” preliminarily approved by the Court]; and

· $118,081.13 i.e. 75% of the PAGA payment, which is to be paid to the LWDA [the remaining $39,360.37 of the PAGA payment is to be included in the Net Fund].

The Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the terms of the Settlement relating to method of payment, Effective Date, tax treatment of the payment, terms of the PAGA payments, and other terms which have not changed since the Court granted preliminary approval. (5-10-23 Preliminary Approval Order.)

D. Analysis of Settlement Agreement

1. Presumption of Fairness

The Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the factors and evidence it considered in determining the Settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness. The Court notes the Declaration of Kazandjian filed in support of the instant motion sets forth the same underlying support for a presumption of fairness as submitted previously in support of the motion for preliminary approval. (Decl. of Kazandjian ¶¶ 13, 20-25, 33-35.)

The only factor the Court did not reach in its ruling on the motion for preliminary approval was the percentage of the class that has objected, which could not be determined until the fairness hearing. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶14:139.18 [“Should the court receive objections to the proposed settlement, it will consider and either sustain or overrule them at the fairness hearing.”].) Plaintiff submitted evidence the Administrator has not received any Requests for Exclusion from Class Members and has received no objections to the Settlement. (Mot., pg. 2; Beliveau Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.)

Based on the foregoing, the Settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

2. Is the settlement fair, adequate and reasonable?

The Settlement does not change the total amount previously offered in settlement and nearly all factors contributing to the Court’s determination of whether the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the amount offered in Settlement remain unchanged. Accordingly, the Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the factors contributing to whether the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (5-10-23 Preliminary Approval Order.) The Court notes that it can now consider the factor of reaction of class members to the settlement, given that the notice requirements have been fulfilled.

a. Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

Simpluris is the claims administrator for this Settlement. (Mot., p. 8.) By May 26, 2023, the Settlement Administrator received the class list. The Class List contained records for 528 individuals identified as Settlement Class Members. (Beliveau Decl., ¶ 3.)

Simpluris ran a National Change of Address (“NCOA”) search to the addresses provided on the Class List to obtain the Class Members’ most recent addresses. (Beliveau Decl., ¶ 3.) On May 15, 2023, Notices were mailed to 528 Class Members; and of the notices mailed, there were 15 Notices that were undeliverable. . (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 8). Of the 15 retuned Notices, 15 Notices were re-mailed to either a newfound address or with forwarding addresses provided by USPS. (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 8). As of November 6, 2023, there are no outstanding disputes, since Simpluris has received no requests for exclusion, no objections, and no disputes of work weeks from Class Members. (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 10-12). Accordingly, there are a total of 528 Participating Class Members.

The Court finds the total settlement amount appears to be a fair, adequate, and reasonable compromise of Plaintiffs’ claims in light of the risks of further litigation and maintaining class action status through trial.

E. Scope of the Release

The Settlement’s Release of Claims and definition of terms associated therewith have not changed since the Settlement was submitted for the Court’s preliminary approval. Accordingly, the Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the scope of the release as set forth in its prior ruling. (5-10-23 Preliminary Approval Order.)

F. Conditional Class Certification

In its ruling preliminarily approving the Settlement, the Court considered the factors for conditional class certification and granted class certification for the purposes of settlement. The only change in facts since that ruling is Plaintiff has updated his class size estimate of approximately 539 members to an actual class size of 528 members who are to receive payment. The Court finds numerosity remains sufficiently established.

Based on the foregoing, class certification for the purpose of settlement is granted.

G. Attorney Fees and Cost

Class Counsel request an award of $524,805.00 (33% of the gross maximum settlement amount) in fees and $9,662.02 in litigation costs and expenses. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 28 and Exhibit 1, Article III § 3.6(b).) The Settlement provides for fees up to 1/3 of the Maximum Settlement Amount and costs up to $15,000 to be awarded to Class Counsel, which is defined as Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. and Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. of Haig B. Kazandijian Lawyers, APC (“Class Counsel”). (Settlement, Article I(d).) Class Members were provided notice of the requested awards and none objected.

“Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) Here, class counsel requests attorney fees using the percentage method but also provides sufficient information for the Court to assess whether the requested fees are reasonable pursuant to the lodestar method. (Mot., pp. 16-22.)

In common fund cases, the Court may employ a percentage of the benefit method, as cross-checked against the lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) 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.”].)

Class Counsel requests $9,662.02 in costs, which is less than the $15,000 cap preliminarily approved for which Class Members were given notice and deemed unobjectionable. (Kazandjian Decl. ¶37, Exh. 3.) The costs include filing fees, court transaction fees, service of process, mediation fees, copy charges for documents, and postage charges, among others. (Kazandjian Decl. ¶37, Exh. 3.) The costs appear to be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to this litigation.

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards $524,805.00 in attorneys’ fees and $9,662.02 in attorneys’ costs.

H. Incentive Award to Class Representative

Plaintiff requests a Class Representative Payment of $7,500.00. (Mot., p. 15.; Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 27.)

Plaintiff’s contributions to this litigation included spending his own personal time to review Defendant’s policies and records with Class Counsel so that they had a better understanding of Defendant’s operations. Plaintiff assisted Plaintiff’s counsel in reviewing numerous documents produced by Defendants this Action. (Kazandjian Decl., ¶ 25.)

The Court notes the Class Representative Payment was included in the notice set out to class members and that there were no objections to the representative payment amount. (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 11.)

Based on the above, as well as the benefits obtained on behalf of the class, the Court grants the Class Representative Payment in the requested amount of $7,500.00.

I. Claims Administration Costs

The claims administrator, Simpluris, requests $10,094.00 for the costs of settlement administration. (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 17; Ex. B.) This is the same amount as provided for in the Settlement and was disclosed to class members in the Notice, to which there were no objections. (Beliveau Decl. ¶ 11; Ex. B.)

Based on the above, the Court awards settlement administration costs in the requested amount of $10,094.00.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants final approval of the class action settlement as follows: