Case Last Refreshed: 4 months ago
Urquizo, Agustin, filed a(n) General Employment - Labor and Employment case represented by Melmed, Jonathan, against Hyratec, Inc., Santos Montemayor Flc, Inc., A California Corporation, represented by Feher, Thomas P, Franco Chavez, O Vanessa, in the jurisdiction of Kern County. This case was filed in Kern County Superior Courts with Clark, Thomas S. presiding.
Case Number |
JudgeClark, Thomas S. Track Judge’s New Cases |
Filing DateJuly 09, 2020 |
Category15-Cv Other Employment - Civil Unlimited |
Last RefreshedDecember 18, 2023 |
Practice AreaLabor and Employment |
Filing LocationKern County, CA |
Matter TypeGeneral Employment |
Case Outcome TypeJudgment |
Order to Show Cause - CRC 3.110
Date: October 22, 2020
Order to Show Cause
Date: July 09, 2020
Motion (Pre-Disposition)
Date: February 22, 2021
Electronic Rejection Notice
Date: September 16, 2020
Ex Parte Hearing - Pre-Disposition
Date: July 30, 2021
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement
Date: September 30, 2021
Electronic Rejection Notice
Date: November 18, 2020
Electronic Rejection Notice
Date: September 23, 2020
Supp Declaration + POS
Date: March 17, 2022
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement
Date: June 23, 2021
Electronic Rejection Notice
Date: September 11, 2020| Date | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 25, 2022 | Hearing |
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement ACCOUNTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS CONT 09/30/2021 Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| March 25, 2022 | Docket Event |
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement ACCOUNTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS CONT 09/30/2021 Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| March 17, 2022 | Docket Event | Supp Declaration + POS | |
| February 09, 2022 | Hearing |
Ruling
Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| September 30, 2021 | Docket Event |
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement 09/30/2021 Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement ACCOUNTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| September 30, 2021 | Hearing |
Final Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement ACCOUNTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| September 28, 2021 | Hearing | Declaration of Lluvia Islas of ILYM Group, Inc., Regarding Disbursement of Settlement Funds | |
| September 28, 2021 | Docket Event | Declaration of Lluvia Islas of ILYM Group, Inc., Regarding Disbursement of Settlement Funds | |
| July 30, 2021 | Docket Event |
Ex Parte Hearing - Pre-Disposition 07/30/2021 Ex Parte Hearing - Pre-Disposition 7/23/2021 Defendant: HYRATEC, Inc. Ex parte Application for Approval of Joint Stipulation for Clarification and/or Modification of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
|
| July 30, 2021 | Hearing |
Judgment (Amended Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Judgment) Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Judgment The Court GRANTS final approval of the Settlement and ORDERS AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: 1. All terms used in this Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "Order") shall have the same meanings given as those tenns are used and/or defined in the parties' Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jonathan Melmed in support of Motion for Preliminary Approval and is made a part of this Order. 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties to this litigation and subject matter jurisdiction to approve this Settlement and all exhibits thereto. 3. For settlement purposes only, the Court finally cextifies the Class, as defined in the Agreement and as follows: All current andformer non-exempt employees ofDefendant Hydratec, Inc. and all current andformer non-exempt employees of Defendant Santos Montemayor FLC, Inc. who were placed at Defendant Hydratec, Inc. who worked at any timefrom June 4, 2016 through December 30, 2020. 4. The Court deems this definition sufficient for the purpose of California Rule of Court 3.765(a), and solely for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement. 5. The Court finds that an ascertainable class of 201 class members exists and a well-defined community of interest exists on the questions of law and fact involved because in the context of the Settlement: (i) all related matters, predominate over any individual questions; (ii) the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of claims of the Class Members; and (iii) in negotiating, entering into and implementing the Settlement, Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented_and protected the interest of the Class Members. 6. The Court is satisfied that ILYM Group, Inc., which functioned as the Settlement Administrator, completed the distribution of Class Notice and Share Form to the Class in a manner that comports with California Rule of Court 3.766. The Class Notice informed 201 Class Members, of the Settlement terms, their rights to do nothing and receive their settlement share, their rights to submit a request for exclusion, their rights to comment on or object to the Settlement, and their rights to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, and be heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods of time to respond and to act were provided by each of these procedures. No Class Members filed written objections to the Settlement as part of this notice process, and no Class Members filed a written statement of intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, and no Class Members submitted requests for exclusion. 7. The Court requires that the envelope transmitting the settlement checks to the Class Members shall bear the notation "YOUR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CHECK IS ENCLOSED." 8. The Court hereby approves the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement Agreement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable, consistent and compliant with all applicable requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the California and United States Constitutions, including the Due Process clauses, the California Rules of Court, and any other applicable law, and in the best interests of each 0f the Parties and Class Members. 9. The Court directs the Parties to effectuate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and declares the Settlement Agreement to be binding on all Class Members. 10. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement has been reached as a result of informed and non-collusive arm's-length negotiations. The Court further finds that the Parties have conducted extensive investigation and research, and their attorneys were able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. 11. The Court also finds that the Settlement now will avoid additional and potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and risks of the Parties were to continue to litigate the case. Additionally, afier considering the monetary recovery provided as part of the Settlement in light of the challenges posed by continued litigation, and Court concludes that Class Counsel secured significant relief for Class Members. 12. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission by Defendants, nor is this Order a finding of the validity of any allegations or 0f any wrongdoing by Defendants. Neither this Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission of any fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession, or liability whatsoever by or against Defendants. 13. The Court appoints Plaintiff Agustin Urquizo as Class Representative and finds him to be adequate. 14. The Court appoints Jonathan Melmed of Melmed Law Group P.C., and Craig J. Ackerman of Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., as Class Counsel, and finds each of them to be adequate, experienced, and well-versed in class action litigation. 15. The terms ofthe Agreement, including the Gross settlement amount 0f $ 1 75,000.00 and the individual Settlement Shares, are fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class and to each Class Member, and the Courts grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in the Agreement, subject to this Order. The Court approves the following allocations, which fall within the ranges stipulated by and through the Settlement Agreement: a. The $12,000.00 designated for payment to ILYM Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, is fair and reasonable. The Court grants final approval of, and orders the Parties to make the payment to the Settlement Administrator in accordance with the Agreement. b. The $58,333.33 amount requested by Plaintiff and Class Counsel for the Class Counsel's attomeys' fees is fair and reasonable in light of the benefit obtained for the Class. The Court grants final approval of, awards, and orders the Class Counsel Fees Payment to be made in accordance with the Agreement. c. The Court awards $9,624.90 in litigation costs, an amount which the Court finds to be reflective of the reasonable costs incurred. The Court grants final approval of, and order the Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment in this amount to be made in accordance with the Agreement. d. The $5,000.00 requested by Plaintiff for the Class Representative Payment is fair and reasonable. The Court grants final approval of, and orders the Class Representative Payment to be made in accordance with the Agreement. e. The Court approves ofthe $15,000.00 allocation assigned for claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), and orders 75% thereof (i.e., $1 1,250.00) to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) in accordance with the terms 0f the Settlement Agreement. 16. The Court orders the Parties to comply with and carry out all terms and provisions of the Settlement, to the extent that the terms thereunder do not contradict with this Order, in which case the provisions of this Order shall take precedence and supersede the Settlement. 17. Nothing in the Settlement or this Order purports to extinguish or waive Defendants' rights to continue to oppose the merits of the claims in this Action or class treatment of these claims in this case if the Settlement fails to become Final or effective, or in any other case without limitation. 18. All Class Members shall be bound by the Settlement and this Order, including the release of claims as set forth in the Agreement. 19. The Parties shall bear their own respective attomeys' fees and costs except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement. 20. All checks mail t0 the Class Members must be cashed within ninety (90) days after mailing. 21. If (i) any of the Class Members are current employees of Defendants, (ii) the settlement check mailed to those employees is returned to the Settlement Administrator as undeliverable, and (iii) the Settlement Administrator is unable to locate a valid mailing address, the Settlement Administrator shall arrange with Defendants to have those distributions deliver to the employee at the place of employment. 22. The Court approved the cy pres beneficiary, Valley's Children's Hospital, for any uncashed checks, and finds that the cy pres beneficiary meets the requirements of CCP 384. 23. Within 10 days after the Court has held a Final and Fairness Approval Hearing and entered a final order certifying the Class for settlement purposes only and approving the Class Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will give notice ofjudgment to Settlement Class Members pursuant to California Rules ofCourt, rule 3.77 1 (b) by posting a copy of said order and final judgment 0n its website. The posting will remain on the website for a period of 60 days. 24. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the Action and the Settlement, including jurisdiction pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.769(h), solely for purposes of (a) enforcing the Settlement Agreement, (b) addressing settlement administration matters, and (c) addressing such post- Judgment matters as may be appropriate under court rules or applicable law. 25. Plaintiff shall file with the Court a report regarding the status of distribution within one hundred and twenty (120) days after all funds have been distributed. 26. This Final Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the above captioned action in its entirety and is intended to be immediately appealable. This Judgment resolves and extinguishes all claims released by the Settlement Agreement, against Defendants. 27. The Court hereby sets a hearing date of 9-30-21 at 8:30 a.m. for a hearing on the final accounting and distribution of the settlement funds. Judge: Clark, Thomas S. |
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.