Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 22-01263565, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Lorenzo Enriguez's Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement  ROA 44

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to July 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.  Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before July 18, 2023.  If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.  In addition, Plaintiffs must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supporting papers on the LWDA.

As to the Settlement:

1.            Are there any other actions (class, individual, or PAGA, including PAGA actions in the pre-filing LWDA stage) that could be affected by this settlement?

2.            The agreement defines the singular term “Defendant” to include both MCP Foods, Inc. and Firmenich, Inc. Does this affect the scope of the class, which is defined in terms of employees of “Defendant”? That is, is the class limited only to persons employed by both entities, or does it include persons employed by just one?

3.            Section 3.06.c lists two figures for administrative costs. Which is correct?

4.            Section 3.06.d refers to incentive payments for “each” named plaintiff. Is there someone other than Enriquez who will get an incentive payment?

5.            Did counsel interview any class members besides the named plaintiff during the investigation?

6.            Counsel’s declaration refers to an expert used to value the claims. Who is the expert? Please provide a CV.

7.            Does the UCL claim simply extend the limitations period, or does it have substantive value of its own?

8.            The Court is not inclined to appoint Daniel Ishu class counsel in his own right, even though the agreement’s definition of “Class Counsel” includes him. His declaration states that he graduated from law school in 2020, and he mentions no prior experience in wage-and-hour class litigation. The Court does not believe this is sufficient experience for him to personally be appointed class counsel, though he may of course work on the matter under the supervision of attorneys with sufficient experience to be named class counsel.

9.            Please provide a bid from the settlement administrator.

10.         At final approval, please submit contemporaneously made billing records for attorney’s fees and costs.  The Court will not be inclined to award an amount of fees and costs greater than the amount stated in the notice.

11.         At final approval, please submit billing records for administrative costs.  The Court will not be inclined to award administrative costs in an amount greater than the amount stated in the notice.

12.         At final approval, Plaintiff is to provide a declaration addressing the enhancement factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, including the amount of time and effort spent on the litigation. 

13.         At final approval, the administrator is to provide a high, low, and average for individual settlement payments, along with Plaintiff’s individual payout.

As to the Notice:

1.            Point 2, “What is this lawsuit about?”, lists two claims with the number (8) (waiting time and UCL).

2.            Please include opt-out and workweek dispute forms with the notice.

3.            Should notice be given in any languages other than English?

4.            If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.

5.            The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.