Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:66 1 BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW BRYAN J. SCHWARTZ (SBN 209903) 2 RACHEL M. TERP (SBN 290666) 3 DECAROL A. DAVIS (SBN 316849) 1330 Broadway, Suite 1630 4 Oakland, California 94612 5 Tel: (510) 444-9300 Fax: (510) 444-9301 6 Email: [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed FLSA Collective and California Class 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 Luis Duque and Daniel Thibodeau, Case No.: 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW 15 individually, on behalf of others similarly PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 16 situated, and on behalf of the general MOTION AND UNOPPOSED public, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 17 APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 18 Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT 19 vs. Date: October 15, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. 20 Bank of America, National Association, Place: Courtroom 9A 21 and DOES 1-50, Hon. Percy Anderson 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS & COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; Case No. 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:67 1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion 3 for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement on October 15, 2018 at 4 1:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Honorable United States District Court Judge Percy 5 Anderson, located at Courtroom 9A, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA,. At the hearing, 6 representative Plaintiffs Luis Duque and Daniel Thibodeau, through their attorneys and on 7 behalf of all others similarly situated, will and hereby do move the Court to: preliminarily 8 approve the $1,950,000 Settlement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Bank of America, 9 National Association; name Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel and Messrs. Duque and 10 Thibodeau as Class Representatives; name Rust Consulting as the Claims Administrator; 11 authorize the mailing of notices to the California Class and Collective Action Members; and 12 schedule a final approval hearing date. 13 The Motion is based upon the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 14 And Collective Action Settlement and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 15 Thereof; the Declaration of Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. (“Schwartz Decl.”), in support of the 16 motion, and the exhibits thereto, including the Joint Stipulation For Settlement and Release 17 of Class and Collective Action Claims and the Proposed Class and Collective Action 18 Notices; the Declarations of Daniel Thibodeau (“Thibodeau Decl.”) and Luis Duque (“Duque Decl.”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Decls.”); as well as the Declarations of Sharon 19 Gamble and Felipe Fuentes (collectively, “Opt-In Decls.”); all other exhibits and 20 attachments submitted in support of the Motion; any oral argument of counsel; the complete 21 files, records, and pleadings in this matter; and such additional matters as the Court may 22 consider. A Proposed Order is submitted herewith. 23 24 Dated: August 21, 2018 BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 25 By: /s/ Bryan J. Schwartz 26 BRYAN J. SCHWARTZ 27 RACHEL M. TERP DECAROL A. DAVIS 28 Attorneys for the Proposed FLSA Collective and California Class 1 Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:68 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 4 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................. 2 5 6 III. PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................... 3 7 IV. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TERMS ........................................................... 5 8 A. Class Definitions ....................................................................................... 5 9 B. Prompt, Meaningful Relief to the Class ................................................... 5 10 C. Fair Notice and an Appropriate Scope of Release ................................... 7 11 V. FACTORS IN PARTIES’ DECISION TO SETTLE .................................... 8 12 A. Litigation Concerning Exemption Defenses Presents Uncertainty. ......... 8 13 B. Defendant May Have Succeeded in its Good-Faith Defenses. ................ 9 14 C. Plaintiffs May Have Recovered Less in Interest and Penalties. ............... 9 15 D. The Fluctuating Work Week Method Could Have Drastically Reduced 16 Recovery for the Collective. ................................................................... 10 17 E. Further Delay Could Have Killed FLSA Collective Participation. ........ 11 18 F. Without Settlement, Recovery Would Be Long Delayed. ..................... 11 19 VI. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ............ 12 20 A. The Settlement Satisfies Rule 23 for Purposes of Settlement. ............... 14 21 1. The Class Is Sufficiently Numerous ................................................. 14 22 2. Common Questions of Law or Fact Are Present in the Class .......... 14 23 3. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Class Members’ Claims .............. 15 24 4. Plaintiffs Are Adequate Representatives of the Class ...................... 15 25 5. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate and Class 26 Resolution Is Superior ...................................................................... 15 B. The Settlement Is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable. ............................... 16 27 28 i PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS & COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; Case No. 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:69 1 1. The Settlement Is Non-Collusive and Was the Product of Extensive Negotiations...................................................................................... 16 2 2. The Settlement Agreement Has No Deficiencies ............................. 17 3 3. Named and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ Modest Enhancements Are 4 Justified ............................................................................................. 18 5 4. The Settlement Falls Within the Range of Possible Approval. ........ 20 6 5. Attorneys’ Fees of Twenty-Five Percent Are Justified. ................... 22 7 6. The Class and Collective Notices Are Sufficient. ............................ 23 8 7. The Requested Cy Pres Beneficiary Is Appropriate ........................ 24 9 C. The FLSA Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable. ...................................... 24 10 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 25 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS & COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; Case No. 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:70 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 2 Federal Cases 3 Allen v. Bedolla, 4 787 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 13 5 Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 6 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 9 7 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 8 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................................... 15 9 Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) ................................................................................................... 24 10 Belanus v. Clark, 11 795 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 11 12 Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 13 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................... 18, 22 14 Biggs v. Wilson, 15 1 F.3d 1537 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................ 23 16 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) .............................................................................................. 22-23 17 Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 18 485 F.Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ............................................................................. 12 19 Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 20 324 U.S. 697 (1945) ................................................................................................... 10 21 Buccellato v. AT&T Operations, Inc., 22 2011 WL 3348055 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2011) ............................................................ 19 23 Cash v. Cycle Craft Co, Inc., 508 F.3d 680 (1st Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 4, 8 24 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 25 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012) ............................................................................................. 8, 9 26 Churchill Village, LLC. v. Gen. Elec., 27 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 23 28 iii PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS & COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; Case No. 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:71 1 Copas v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 61 F.Supp.2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999) ........................................................................... 8 2