On October 04, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Harper, Richard,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
Hamner Towing, Inc.,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORMA
Brian Mankin, Esq. [CSB No. 216228]
J. Cgmg‘ggmggfigfifio
brian@lmlfirm.c0m
Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924] MAR 1 5 2023
kristina@lmlfirm.c0m
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP BY
5198 Arlington Avenue, PMB 5 13 AMBER M' R' DEPUTY
Riverside, CA 92504
Tel: (951) 320-1444 Fax: (951) 320-1445
|
Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and on behalf of all others similarly situated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
RICHARD HARPER, individually,0n a Case No.1 CIVSB 2127523
representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSl'fined t0 H011 Jadge DaVid COhn, Dept 526,
12
13
14
others similarly situated;
Plaintiff,
WEEK
for a purposes]
VS. 1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING
15 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT;
HAMNER TOWING, INC., a California
16
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 2) CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING A
17 inclusive; CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT
PURPOSES ONLY;
18 Defendants.
3) DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION TO THE
19
CLASS OF THE SETTLEMENT
20 NOTICE AND EXPLANATION FORM;
AND
21
4) SETTING A HEARING FOR FINAL
22
APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
23
Complaint filed: October 4, 2021
24
25 Having reviewed and read the Class Action and Private Attorney General Act Settlement
26 Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) between Plaintiff Richard
27 Harper and Defendant Hamner Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), as well as the
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 0F CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
-1-
Approval of Class Action Settlement, the documents submitted in support of the motion, and all
supporting legal authorities and documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the Settlement based upon the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds its terms to be within the range of reasonableness
of a settlement that ultimately could be granted final approval by the Court at a Final Approval
hearing. The settlement appears to be fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class. Based on a
review of the papers submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Settlement is the result 0f
arms-length negotiations conducted after the Parties adequately investigated and became familiar
with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in
10 the Settlement process supports the Court’s conclusion that the Settlement is non-collusive.
11 2. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the prbposed Class is
12 ascertainable and that there is a sufficiently defined community of interest among the Class
13 Members in questions of law and fact. The Court, therefore, conditionally certifies the following
14 Class, for settlement purposes only:
15 All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
16 Defendant in California at any time during the Class Period.
17 3. Additionally, the “Aggrieved Employees” are defined to include: “all current and
18 former nonexempt employees employed by Defendant in California at any time during the
k
19 PAGA Period.”
20 4. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement and as relevant to Class and Aggrieved
21 Employees definitions: (a) “Class Period” means the period of October 4, 2017, through March
22 9, 2023, and (b) “PAGA Period” means the period of October 4, 2020, through March 9, 2023.
23 5. The class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement between
24 Plaintiff and Defendant is preliminarily approved as it appears to be proper, to fall within the
25 range of a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement, and to be presumptively valid, subject only
26 to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing.
27 6. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Plaintiff Richard Harper as Class
28 Representative, and Brian Mankin and Kristina Bui Carlson as Class Counsel.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 0F CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
-2-
Document Filed Date
March 15, 2023
Case Filing Date
October 04, 2021
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORMA Brian Mankin, Esq. [CSB No. 216228] J. Cgmg‘ggmggfigfifio brian@lmlfirm.c0m Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924] MAR 1 5 2023 kristina@lmlfirm.c0m LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP BY 5198 Arlington Avenue, PMB 5 13 AMBER M' R' DEPUTY Riverside, CA 92504 Tel: (951) 320-1444 Fax: (951) 320-1445 | Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and on behalf of all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 RICHARD HARPER, individually,0n a Case No.1 CIVSB 2127523 representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSl'fined t0 H011 Jadge DaVid COhn, Dept 526, 12 13 14 others similarly situated; Plaintiff, WEEK for a purposes] VS. 1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 15 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; HAMNER TOWING, INC., a California 16 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 2) CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING A 17 inclusive; CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY; 18 Defendants. 3) DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION TO THE 19 CLASS OF THE SETTLEMENT 20 NOTICE AND EXPLANATION FORM; AND 21 4) SETTING A HEARING FOR FINAL 22 APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT 23 Complaint filed: October 4, 2021 24 25 Having reviewed and read the Class Action and Private Attorney General Act Settlement 26 Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) between Plaintiff Richard 27 Harper and Defendant Hamner Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), as well as the 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 0F CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT -1- Approval of Class Action Settlement, the documents submitted in support of the motion, and all supporting legal authorities and documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the Settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds its terms to be within the range of reasonableness of a settlement that ultimately could be granted final approval by the Court at a Final Approval hearing. The settlement appears to be fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class. Based on a review of the papers submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Settlement is the result 0f arms-length negotiations conducted after the Parties adequately investigated and became familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in 10 the Settlement process supports the Court’s conclusion that the Settlement is non-collusive. 11 2. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the prbposed Class is 12 ascertainable and that there is a sufficiently defined community of interest among the Class 13 Members in questions of law and fact. The Court, therefore, conditionally certifies the following 14 Class, for settlement purposes only: 15 All current and former non-exempt employees employed by 16 Defendant in California at any time during the Class Period. 17 3. Additionally, the “Aggrieved Employees” are defined to include: “all current and 18 former nonexempt employees employed by Defendant in California at any time during the k 19 PAGA Period.” 20 4. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement and as relevant to Class and Aggrieved 21 Employees definitions: (a) “Class Period” means the period of October 4, 2017, through March 22 9, 2023, and (b) “PAGA Period” means the period of October 4, 2020, through March 9, 2023. 23 5. The class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement between 24 Plaintiff and Defendant is preliminarily approved as it appears to be proper, to fall within the 25 range of a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement, and to be presumptively valid, subject only 26 to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing. 27 6. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Plaintiff Richard Harper as Class 28 Representative, and Brian Mankin and Kristina Bui Carlson as Class Counsel. ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 0F CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT -2-