Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 08/04/2022 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: S. Bloxson
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: N. Alvi, J. Reilly
CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion
ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS
APPEARANCES
Keith Jacoby for Health Net of California Inc (Defendant) - remotely
Piya Mukjerjee/Kyle Nordrehaug for Andrea Spears (Plaintiff) - remotely
Jose Patino Jr. for Tomas Arana (Plaintiff) - remotely
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Final Approval Hearing
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for final approval of
class action settlement is ruled upon as follows.
Appearance required.
Overview
On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a Complaint against Defendant Health Net of California, Inc.
("Defendant") in this Court (the "Spears Action"). Plaintiff Spears asserted the following causes of action
against Defendant: (1) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code section
510; (3) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
section 226; and (4) failure to provide wages at termination in violation of California Labor Code sections
201, 202, and 203. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a First Amended Complaint that added a
cause of action for violation of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). (Setareh Decl. ¶ 14.)
On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Arana filed a separate Complaint against Defendant in this Court (the
"Arana Action"). Plaintiff Arana asserted causes of action against Defendant for: (1) failure to provide
meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failure to
provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failure
to pay hourly wages in violation of California Labor code sections 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1
and 1198; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
section 226(a); (5) failure to timely pay all final wages in violation of California Labor Code sections
201-203; and (6) violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. On
DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
October 3, 2017, Plaintiff Arana filed a First Amended Complaint that added a claim against Defendant
for violation of PAGA. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 15.)
On October 11, 2017, the Court consolidated the Spears Action and the Arana Action. On December 21,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against Defendant that alleged claims for: (1) failure to
provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2)
failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198;
(3) failure to pay hourly wages in violation of California Labor code sections 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2,
1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements in violation of California
Labor Code section 226(a); (5) failure to timely pay all final wages in violation of California Labor Code
sections 201-203; (6) violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.;
and (7) violations of PAGA. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 15.)
On October 23, 2018, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendant's Motion for Summary
Adjudication. On February 26, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary
Adjudication. On or around March 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition,
Certiorari, or other Appropriate Relief regarding the Court's order denying Defendant's Renewed Motion
for Summary Adjudication. On April 25, 2019, the Court of Appeal denied Defendant's Petition. On
September 30, 2019, this Court denied Defendant's Motion for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Ariana's Cases
Should Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 17.)
On October 8, 2019, the Court granted class certification in this Action. On October 22, 2020, the Court
denied Defendant's Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana's claims and Motion for an
Order to Strike Plaintiff Spears' claims. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 18.)
Defendants deny all allegations, but the parties have been able to reach a compromise. On June 8,
2021, the parties participated in an all-day mediation conducted by Tripper Ortman, Esq. (Nordrehaug
Decl. ¶ 21.) Following the conclusion of the mediation, the parties reached an agreement based upon a
mediator's proposal. (Supplemental Nordrehaug Decl. Ex. 1 ("Settlement Agreement").)
This tentative ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all
capitalized terms therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
Settlement Class and Objections
In its order dated March 10, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the following settlement class:
All individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California and who were classified
as non-exempt employees at any time during the Class Period and who did not previously opt out of the
Class post-Class Certification. The Class Period is from April 5, 2013 through October 8, 2019. (ROA
616.)
There are 5,266 Class Members. (Nava Decl. ¶ 5.) On April 7, 2022, the settlement administrator mailed
the Notice Packets. (Nava Decl. ¶ 7.) Of the Notice Packets, 354 were returned as undeliverable.
However, the settlement administrator was able to obtain updated addresses via skip tracing for 277 of
the returned Notice Packets. (Nava Decl. ¶ 8.) A total of 77 Notice Packets have been deemed
undeliverable because no updated address was found via skip tracing. (Nava Decl. ¶ 9.) There have
been no requests for exclusion. (Nava Decl. ¶ 11.)
The settlement administrator received two objections to the Settlement, one from Royleen Herrin and
one from Maria Perez. The written objections have been provided to the Court. (Nava Decl. Ex. B.) The
DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
Parties responded to the objections and argue that "[t]he objections do not provide any fact from which
this Court could draw any inferences about the settlement's fairness, reasonableness or adequacy."
(Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Joint Response to Objections to Settlement at 2:2-15.) The Court agrees that
the objections do not provide a basis for denial of final approval of the settlement and the objections are
OVERRULED. Therefore, because there as been no material change of events with respect to the
settlement class since the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement, the Court intends to grant final
certification of the Settlement Class pending the final approval hearing.
Class Representatives
The Court appoints Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana as Class Representatives. ("Class
Representatives").
Class Counsel
The Court appoints Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP and Setareh Law Group as class
counsel for settlement purposes only ("Class Counsel").
Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement
In approving a class action settlement, the Court is to determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, in light of all of the circumstances. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48
Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed
settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Ibid.) "[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 1802.)
In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength
of the Plaintiff's case, the risk, expenses, 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 state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Dunk, supra, 48
Cal.App.4th at 1801.) While this Court's tentative ruling indicates it will give its final approval to the class
action settlement, the Court must still hold the final fairness hearing to allow class members the
opportunity to be heard. (Id. at 1802.)
This is a non-reversionary, opt-out settlement that provides that Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement
Amount of $5,000,000. The following will be paid from the GSA: (1) individual settlement payments to
Class Members; (2) Class Counsel fees not to exceed one-third of the GSA ($1,666,666) and litigation
costs of $140,000; (3) settlement administration expenses of $50,000; (4) a service award to Class
Representatives of $10,000 each; and the PAGA payment of $150,000, 75% of which will be allocated to
the LWDA and 25% of which will be distributed to the Aggrieved Employees. (Settlement Agreement ¶
I(S), III(B); Supplemental Nordrehaug Decl. Ex. 1 at ¶ 7; Setareh Decl. ¶ 12; Nava Decl. ¶ 15.) The GSA
does not include the employer's share of payroll taxes, which will be separately paid by Defendants.
(Settlement Agreement ¶ I(S).)
Participating Class Members will receive a proportional share of the Net Settlement Amount through
individual settlement payments, based on the number of workweeks worked by Class Members during
the Class Period. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.) The Net Settlement Amount is $2,973,334.00. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.)
Participating Class Members will receive an estimated average gross payment of $541.52, with the
highest gross payment being $1,416.31. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.)
DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
Any settlement check that is not cashed within 180 days will be paid to the California State Controller's
Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Participating Class Member. (Settlement Agreement ¶
III(E)(8).)
The LWDA was served with the Settlement Agreement (ROA 609 at ¶ 26 and ROA 643.)
The Court tentatively finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in light of all of the
circumstances presented. The moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was the product of
arms-length bargaining between the parties and the settlement was reached after investigation, formal
and informal discovery, motion practice, class certification, and a mediation with mediator Tripper
Ortman. (Nordrehaug Decl. ¶¶ 12-23.) The foregoing allowed the parties, and therefore this Court, to act
intelligently with respect to the settlement. Provided that no further objection is asserted by any class
member at the hearing on this matter, the Court anticipates signing the proposed order.
Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Enhancements
The Court tentatively approves Class Counsels' request for attorney's fees in the amount of $1,666,666
and litigation costs in the amount of $140,000. The Court also tentatively approves the enhancement
award of $10,000 to each of the Class Representatives.
Post Judgment Hearing
The Court will set a post-judgment hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384 for April 7,
2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 25. No later than March 24, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file a status report
informing the Court of the status of payments to Class Members and the payment of any uncashed
checks and interest accrued thereon to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. There being no objection by any party when the matter was
called, the motion for final approval was granted. The court will review the revised proposed order.
The Status Conference - Civil Special Sets is scheduled for 04/07/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 25.
DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 4
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/04/2022 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger CLERK: S. Bloxson REPORTER/ERM: None BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: N. Alvi, J. Reilly CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017 CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS APPEARANCES Keith Jacoby for Health Net of California Inc (Defendant) - remotely Piya Mukjerjee/Kyle Nordrehaug for Andrea Spears (Plaintiff) - remotely Jose Patino Jr. for Tomas Arana (Plaintiff) - remotely Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Final Approval Hearing TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for final approval of class action settlement is ruled upon as follows. Appearance required. Overview On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a Complaint against Defendant Health Net of California, Inc. ("Defendant") in this Court (the "Spears Action"). Plaintiff Spears asserted the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code section 510; (3) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226; and (4) failure to provide wages at termination in violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a First Amended Complaint that added a cause of action for violation of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). (Setareh Decl. ¶ 14.) On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Arana filed a separate Complaint against Defendant in this Court (the "Arana Action"). Plaintiff Arana asserted causes of action against Defendant for: (1) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failure to pay hourly wages in violation of California Labor code sections 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a); (5) failure to timely pay all final wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; and (6) violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. On DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS October 3, 2017, Plaintiff Arana filed a First Amended Complaint that added a claim against Defendant for violation of PAGA. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 15.) On October 11, 2017, the Court consolidated the Spears Action and the Arana Action. On December 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against Defendant that alleged claims for: (1) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failure to pay hourly wages in violation of California Labor code sections 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a); (5) failure to timely pay all final wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; (6) violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and (7) violations of PAGA. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 15.) On October 23, 2018, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication. On February 26, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication. On or around March 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, Certiorari, or other Appropriate Relief regarding the Court's order denying Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication. On April 25, 2019, the Court of Appeal denied Defendant's Petition. On September 30, 2019, this Court denied Defendant's Motion for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Ariana's Cases Should Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 17.) On October 8, 2019, the Court granted class certification in this Action. On October 22, 2020, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana's claims and Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Spears' claims. (Setareh Decl. ¶ 18.) Defendants deny all allegations, but the parties have been able to reach a compromise. On June 8, 2021, the parties participated in an all-day mediation conducted by Tripper Ortman, Esq. (Nordrehaug Decl. ¶ 21.) Following the conclusion of the mediation, the parties reached an agreement based upon a mediator's proposal. (Supplemental Nordrehaug Decl. Ex. 1 ("Settlement Agreement").) This tentative ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all capitalized terms therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class and Objections In its order dated March 10, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the following settlement class: All individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California and who were classified as non-exempt employees at any time during the Class Period and who did not previously opt out of the Class post-Class Certification. The Class Period is from April 5, 2013 through October 8, 2019. (ROA 616.) There are 5,266 Class Members. (Nava Decl. ¶ 5.) On April 7, 2022, the settlement administrator mailed the Notice Packets. (Nava Decl. ¶ 7.) Of the Notice Packets, 354 were returned as undeliverable. However, the settlement administrator was able to obtain updated addresses via skip tracing for 277 of the returned Notice Packets. (Nava Decl. ¶ 8.) A total of 77 Notice Packets have been deemed undeliverable because no updated address was found via skip tracing. (Nava Decl. ¶ 9.) There have been no requests for exclusion. (Nava Decl. ¶ 11.) The settlement administrator received two objections to the Settlement, one from Royleen Herrin and one from Maria Perez. The written objections have been provided to the Court. (Nava Decl. Ex. B.) The DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Parties responded to the objections and argue that "[t]he objections do not provide any fact from which this Court could draw any inferences about the settlement's fairness, reasonableness or adequacy." (Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Joint Response to Objections to Settlement at 2:2-15.) The Court agrees that the objections do not provide a basis for denial of final approval of the settlement and the objections are OVERRULED. Therefore, because there as been no material change of events with respect to the settlement class since the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement, the Court intends to grant final certification of the Settlement Class pending the final approval hearing. Class Representatives The Court appoints Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana as Class Representatives. ("Class Representatives"). Class Counsel The Court appoints Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP and Setareh Law Group as class counsel for settlement purposes only ("Class Counsel"). Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement In approving a class action settlement, the Court is to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, in light of all of the circumstances. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Ibid.) "[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 1802.) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiff's case, the risk, expenses, 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 state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801.) While this Court's tentative ruling indicates it will give its final approval to the class action settlement, the Court must still hold the final fairness hearing to allow class members the opportunity to be heard. (Id. at 1802.) This is a non-reversionary, opt-out settlement that provides that Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $5,000,000. The following will be paid from the GSA: (1) individual settlement payments to Class Members; (2) Class Counsel fees not to exceed one-third of the GSA ($1,666,666) and litigation costs of $140,000; (3) settlement administration expenses of $50,000; (4) a service award to Class Representatives of $10,000 each; and the PAGA payment of $150,000, 75% of which will be allocated to the LWDA and 25% of which will be distributed to the Aggrieved Employees. (Settlement Agreement ¶ I(S), III(B); Supplemental Nordrehaug Decl. Ex. 1 at ¶ 7; Setareh Decl. ¶ 12; Nava Decl. ¶ 15.) The GSA does not include the employer's share of payroll taxes, which will be separately paid by Defendants. (Settlement Agreement ¶ I(S).) Participating Class Members will receive a proportional share of the Net Settlement Amount through individual settlement payments, based on the number of workweeks worked by Class Members during the Class Period. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.) The Net Settlement Amount is $2,973,334.00. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.) Participating Class Members will receive an estimated average gross payment of $541.52, with the highest gross payment being $1,416.31. (Nava Decl. ¶ 14.) DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Any settlement check that is not cashed within 180 days will be paid to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Participating Class Member. (Settlement Agreement ¶ III(E)(8).) The LWDA was served with the Settlement Agreement (ROA 609 at ¶ 26 and ROA 643.) The Court tentatively finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in light of all of the circumstances presented. The moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining between the parties and the settlement was reached after investigation, formal and informal discovery, motion practice, class certification, and a mediation with mediator Tripper Ortman. (Nordrehaug Decl. ¶¶ 12-23.) The foregoing allowed the parties, and therefore this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Provided that no further objection is asserted by any class member at the hearing on this matter, the Court anticipates signing the proposed order. Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Enhancements The Court tentatively approves Class Counsels' request for attorney's fees in the amount of $1,666,666 and litigation costs in the amount of $140,000. The Court also tentatively approves the enhancement award of $10,000 to each of the Class Representatives. Post Judgment Hearing The Court will set a post-judgment hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384 for April 7, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 25. No later than March 24, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file a status report informing the Court of the status of payments to Class Members and the payment of any uncashed checks and interest accrued thereon to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. There being no objection by any party when the matter was called, the motion for final approval was granted. The court will review the revised proposed order. The Status Conference - Civil Special Sets is scheduled for 04/07/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 25. DATE: 08/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 54 Calendar No.