Preview
Supt^rior Court Qf C9lif<3|rnMii
SscramenfD: -
06/17/2022
I Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) :aturnor4
shaun@setarehlaw.com
2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Bv • "H*"*y
william@setarehlaw.com Cas« ^9umbe^
3 SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 34-2017-00210560
4 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109
6 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
DE BLOUW LLP
7 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
LL Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
8 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
>- 2255 Calle Clara
CQ 9 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
10 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Email: Kyle@bamlawca.com
II
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
12 ANDREA SPEARS and TOMAS ARANA
(additional counsel listed on following page)
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
15 J
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560-
16 of herself and on behalf ofall persons CU-OE-GDS
similarly situated,
17 Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable
Plaintiff Jill H. Taley, Department 25
18
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S
19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO
California Corporation; and Does I through SETTLEMENT
20 50, inclusive.
Date: July 12, 2022
21 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: Department 25
22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, Original Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
23 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
Plaintiff, Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
24
V.
25
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
26 California corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive.
27
Defendants.
28
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO^SEjPTLEMENT
1 Keith A. Jacoby, Bar No. 150233
kjacoby@littler.com
2 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East
3 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067.3107
4 Telephone: 310.772.7284
Fax No.: 310.553.5583
5
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Bar No. 312067
6 njenkins@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
7 500 Capitol Mall
Suite 2000
8 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Telephone: 916.830.7200
9 Fax No.: ,916.561.0828
Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
2 This Settlement resolves claims brought by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana, who
3 have alleged various wage and hour violations by Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. pursuant to
4 Califomia's Labor Code provisions as well as the Labor Code Private Attomeys General Act of 2004
5 (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq) ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of themselves as well
6 as other allegedly affected current and former employees and job applicants, pursuant to Code of Civil
7 Procedure section 382. As Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and final approval acknowledges.
8 Defendant vociferously deny such claims, and Plaintiffs faced significant risk in pursuing their claims
9 through litigation.
lO As a result of the settlement. Defendants have agreed to compensate Plaintiffs, the class and
11 aggrieved employees a total of $5,000,000 based on their length of time employed by Defendant. The
12 settlement includes, among other things, Class Counsel 's fees, costs of class notice and settlement
13 administration, and an enhancement award to Plaintiffs of $10,000 each, as well as payment to
14 Califomia's Labor and Workforce Development Agency for penalties allegedly owed.
15 Class Notice was disseminated through a Class Notice Packet which was approved by the Court
16 on March 10, 2022. The Class Notice Packet included dissemination of the Class Notice to all Class
17 Members. Out of the 5,266 total Class Members, the Settlement Administrator received no requests for
18 exclusion, and only two (2) objections. (Declaration of Madely Nava, ^^111-12.)
19 Before addressing the merits of each objector, it is important to point out that none of the
20 objections relate to the faimess of the settlement, the settlement catalog, the requested fee award and
21 service awards, nor even the Settlement Notice. As none of the objections concem the settlement's
22 "faimess, reasonableness or adequacy" in any way, and on this basis alone, this Court should overmle
23 both of the objections. As a threshold matter, none of them even come close to providing sufficient
24 facts - let alone, any facts at all - that would assist this Court in making a determination as to whether
25 the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
26 Accordingly, both objections should be overruled.
27 ///
28 ///
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT
IL THE OBJECTIONS ARE INVALID AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED
2 On a motion for final approval of a class action settlement, the court's inquiry "must be limited
3 to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or
4 overreaching by, or collusion between the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole,
5 is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concemed." Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021)
6 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 534. "Ultimately, the [trial] court's determination is nothing more than 'an
7 amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.'" 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
8 Franchising V Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145.
9 Both objections fail to perform the critical analysis needed for this Court to seriously consider
10 denying the Motion for Final Approval. Neither of the objections analyzes the relationship between the
11 agreed-upon relief and the result that might have resulted from a trial, the expected length of the
•2 litigation, or the substantial risks plaintiffs faced in bringing their claims. Indeed, both objectors assert
13 that they are entitled to the full value of their asserted claims, and as to Royleen Herrin, even claims that
14 were not the subject of this action. The objections do not provide any facts from which this Court could
15 draw any inferences about the settlement's faimess, reasonableness or adequacy.
16 Accordingly, because they fail to state with specificity the grounds for their objections, and fail
17 to take into account any of the factors this Court must analyze in approving the Settlement, both
18 objections should be overruled.
19
20 DATED: June 13,2022 SETAREH LAW GROUP
21
/s/Shaun Setareh
22 SHAUN SETAREH
WILLIAM M. PAO
23 NOLAN E. DILTS
Attomeys for PlaintifTs
24 TOMAS ARANA
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT
DATED: June 13,2022 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE
BLOUW LLP
2
3 /s/ Kyle Nordrehaug
NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL
4 KYLE R. NORDREHAUG
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
5 ANDREA SPEARS
6
7 Dated: June 13, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
8
9 /s/ Keith A. Jacoby
KEITH A. JACOBY
10 NATHANIEL H. JENKINS
Attomeys for Defendant
II HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT
Preview
Supt^rior Court Qf C9lif<3|rnMii SscramenfD: - 06/17/2022 I Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) :aturnor4 shaun@setarehlaw.com 2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Bv • "H*"*y william@setarehlaw.com Cas« ^9umbe^ 3 SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 34-2017-00210560 4 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 6 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 7 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) LL Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 8 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) >- 2255 Calle Clara CQ 9 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 10 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Email: Kyle@bamlawca.com II Attomeys for Plaintiffs 12 ANDREA SPEARS and TOMAS ARANA (additional counsel listed on following page) 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 15 J ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560- 16 of herself and on behalf ofall persons CU-OE-GDS similarly situated, 17 Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Plaintiff Jill H. Taley, Department 25 18 PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S 19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO California Corporation; and Does I through SETTLEMENT 20 50, inclusive. Date: July 12, 2022 21 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: Department 25 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Original Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 23 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 Plaintiff, Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017 24 V. 25 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 26 California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 27 Defendants. 28 PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO^SEjPTLEMENT 1 Keith A. Jacoby, Bar No. 150233 kjacoby@littler.com 2 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East 3 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3107 4 Telephone: 310.772.7284 Fax No.: 310.553.5583 5 Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Bar No. 312067 6 njenkins@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 7 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2000 8 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Telephone: 916.830.7200 9 Fax No.: ,916.561.0828 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT I. INTRODUCTION 2 This Settlement resolves claims brought by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana, who 3 have alleged various wage and hour violations by Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. pursuant to 4 Califomia's Labor Code provisions as well as the Labor Code Private Attomeys General Act of 2004 5 (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq) ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of themselves as well 6 as other allegedly affected current and former employees and job applicants, pursuant to Code of Civil 7 Procedure section 382. As Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and final approval acknowledges. 8 Defendant vociferously deny such claims, and Plaintiffs faced significant risk in pursuing their claims 9 through litigation. lO As a result of the settlement. Defendants have agreed to compensate Plaintiffs, the class and 11 aggrieved employees a total of $5,000,000 based on their length of time employed by Defendant. The 12 settlement includes, among other things, Class Counsel 's fees, costs of class notice and settlement 13 administration, and an enhancement award to Plaintiffs of $10,000 each, as well as payment to 14 Califomia's Labor and Workforce Development Agency for penalties allegedly owed. 15 Class Notice was disseminated through a Class Notice Packet which was approved by the Court 16 on March 10, 2022. The Class Notice Packet included dissemination of the Class Notice to all Class 17 Members. Out of the 5,266 total Class Members, the Settlement Administrator received no requests for 18 exclusion, and only two (2) objections. (Declaration of Madely Nava, ^^111-12.) 19 Before addressing the merits of each objector, it is important to point out that none of the 20 objections relate to the faimess of the settlement, the settlement catalog, the requested fee award and 21 service awards, nor even the Settlement Notice. As none of the objections concem the settlement's 22 "faimess, reasonableness or adequacy" in any way, and on this basis alone, this Court should overmle 23 both of the objections. As a threshold matter, none of them even come close to providing sufficient 24 facts - let alone, any facts at all - that would assist this Court in making a determination as to whether 25 the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. 26 Accordingly, both objections should be overruled. 27 /// 28 /// PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT IL THE OBJECTIONS ARE INVALID AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED 2 On a motion for final approval of a class action settlement, the court's inquiry "must be limited 3 to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or 4 overreaching by, or collusion between the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, 5 is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concemed." Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 6 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 534. "Ultimately, the [trial] court's determination is nothing more than 'an 7 amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.'" 7-Eleven Owners for Fair 8 Franchising V Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145. 9 Both objections fail to perform the critical analysis needed for this Court to seriously consider 10 denying the Motion for Final Approval. Neither of the objections analyzes the relationship between the 11 agreed-upon relief and the result that might have resulted from a trial, the expected length of the •2 litigation, or the substantial risks plaintiffs faced in bringing their claims. Indeed, both objectors assert 13 that they are entitled to the full value of their asserted claims, and as to Royleen Herrin, even claims that 14 were not the subject of this action. The objections do not provide any facts from which this Court could 15 draw any inferences about the settlement's faimess, reasonableness or adequacy. 16 Accordingly, because they fail to state with specificity the grounds for their objections, and fail 17 to take into account any of the factors this Court must analyze in approving the Settlement, both 18 objections should be overruled. 19 20 DATED: June 13,2022 SETAREH LAW GROUP 21 /s/Shaun Setareh 22 SHAUN SETAREH WILLIAM M. PAO 23 NOLAN E. DILTS Attomeys for PlaintifTs 24 TOMAS ARANA 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT DATED: June 13,2022 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2 3 /s/ Kyle Nordrehaug NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL 4 KYLE R. NORDREHAUG Attomeys for Plaintiffs 5 ANDREA SPEARS 6 7 Dated: June 13, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 8 9 /s/ Keith A. Jacoby KEITH A. JACOBY 10 NATHANIEL H. JENKINS Attomeys for Defendant II HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT