Preview
Envelope: 3082113
Larry W. Lee (State Bar No, 228175)
Nick Rosenthal (State Bar No. 268297)
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C,
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131)
Polaris Law Group LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
‘Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
ll SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
13 RICARDO MACIAS, as an individual, and | Case No.: 16CV304263
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
14 [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Brian
15 Plaintiffs, C. Walsh, Dept. 1]
16 vs. [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND
JUDGMENT
17 SASCO, a California corporation; and
18 DOES | through 100, inclusive, Date: July 12, 2019
Time: 10;00 A.M.
19 Defendants, Dept.; 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Ricardo Macias (“Plaintiff” or “Macias”), and the settling Defendant SASCO
(“Defendant”) (together the “Parties”) have entered into the Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”) to settle the above-captioned class action subject to the
Court’s approval (the “Settlement”).
This Court previously granted final approval of the Settlement as reflected by this Court’s
December 4, 2018 Order (“Order”), Pursuant to the Order, the Court hereby issues this
Amended Order and Judgment as follows:
L BACKGROUND
On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed
10 suit against Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. The
i Complaint asserted claims for (1) violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226; (2) violation of Cal. Labor
12 Code § 2698, et seq.; (3) violation of Cal. Govt Code § 12940(m); (4) violation of Cal. Govt
13 Code § 12940(n); and (5) violation of Cal. Govt Code § 12940, ef seg. This Amended Order and
14 Judgment applies only as to the first and second causes of action as the remaining individual
15 causes of action have been privately settled between the Parties.
16 A. Class Members
17 The “Class Members” are defined as “all current and former employees of Defendants in
18 the State of California who were paid wages al any time during December 21, 2015 through
19 October 2, 2016.”
20 B Operation of the Settlement,
21 Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order dated July 27, 2018, this Court conditionally
22 certified the Class and granted preliminary approval to the Settlement. The Preliminary Approval
23 Order also approved of the proposed forms of notice and notice plan. The Court entered the
24 Preliminary Approval Order afier review and consideration of all of the pleadings filed in
25 connection herewith, and the oral presentations made by counsel at the hearing,
26 In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notices were sent to all
27 Class Members via first class mail. Furthermore, follow-up mailings were performed for returned
28 mail. The notice process was timely completed.
2
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT
This Court finds that the Settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-
collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, and does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to any individuals, The Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. The Court further finds that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that Plaintiff has satisfied the standards for final
approval of a class action settlement under California law. Under the provisions of California
Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as approved for use
by the California state court in Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800, 821 (1971), the trial
court has discretion to certify a class where:
10 [Questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual
il members, and that a class action is superior to the available
12 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy
.». Fed, R, Civ. Proc, 23,
13
14 Certification of a settlement class is the appropriate judicial device under these circumstances,
15 A total of one thousand six hundred forty-six (1,646) Class Members were determined by
16 Phoenix Settlement Administrators (PSA), the Court-appoinied Class Action Settlement
17 Administrator, to be valid Class Members. The total amount to be distributed to valid Class
18 Members was $316,574.21. The Court approved Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the
19 amount of $193,675.79, Class Representative Service Payment to Plaintiff in the amount of
20 $7,500.00, PAGA penalty in the amount of $15,000.00, and administration fees in the amount of
21 $17,250.00. Defendant deposited the total amount of $550,000.00 into the Qualified Settlement
22 Fund (“QSF”) on December 27, 2018.
23 PSA issued and mailed checks from the QSF to each valid Claimant, Class Counsel,
24 Class Representative, PSA, and the LDWA on December 28, 2018. All settlement checks were
25 issued to void after 180 days from the date of issue. Therefore, the check-cashing deadline was
26 June 26, 2019.
27 To date, a total of two hundred thirty-two (232) checks, totaling $25,862.07, remain
28 uncashed. All disbursements were completed in compliance with the Stipulation of Class Action
3
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS
FOLLOWS:
1 The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement filed in this case.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the fitigation, the Class
Representative, the other Members of the Settlement Class, and Defendant.
3 The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice of Pending Class Action
10 Settlement as disseminated to the Class Members, constituted the best notice practicable under
11 the circumstances to afl Persons within the definition of the Class, and fully met the requirements
12 of California law and due process under the United States Constitution.
13 4 The Court approves the settlement of the above-captioned action, as set forth in
14 the Settlement Agreement, as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settling Parties. The
15 Settling Parties are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement
16 Agreement.
17 5 Except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties
18 are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees,
19 6 The Court hereby certifies the following Class for settlement purposes only: all
20 current and former employees of Defendants in the State of California who were paid wages at
21 any time during December 21, 2015 through October 2, 2016.
22, 7 With respect to the Class and for purposes of approving the settlement only and
23 for no other purpose, this Court finds and concludes that: (a) the members of the Class are
24 ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are
25 questions of law or fact common to the Class, and there is a well-defined community of interest
26 among Members of the Class with respect to the subject matter of the non-exempt claims in the
27 Litigation; (c) the claims of Class Representative is typical of the claims of the members of the
28 Class; (d) the Class Representative has fairly and adequately protected the interests of the
4
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT
members of the Class; (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient
adjudication of this controversy; and (f} the counsel of record for the Class Representative, i.e.,
Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as counsel for the Plaintiff in his individual and
representative capacity and for the Class.
8 The Court approves the Individual Settlement Payment amounts, which shall be
distributed pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
9, Pursuant to the Order, funds from uncashed checks will be distributed to Legal
Aid at Work in the amount of $25,862.07 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
10. The Court hereby enters final judgment in this case in accordance with the terms
10 of the Settlement, Preliminary Approval Order, the Order, and this Amended Order and
ll Judgment. Without affecting the finality of the Settlement or Judgment entered, this Court shall
12 retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties, including all
13 Settlement Class Members, for purposes of enforcing and interpreting this Amended Order and
14
Judgment and the Settlement.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Bx
16
Ce
4
17
DATED: J-feF
18 HON. BRIAN C. WALSH
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ]
Jss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ]
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 8. Figueroa Street, Suite
1250, Los Angeles, California 90071.
On July 2, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as; [PROPOSED]
AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10 Ronald A. Peters
Elisa Nadeau
IL Littler Mendelson, P.C,
12 50 West San Fernando, 15'" Floor
San Jose, California 95113
13 Attorneys for Defendant Sasco, Ine.
14 x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above-
15 entitled document(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website
www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for
16 the above-entitled case, The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the
filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s)
17 in this office,
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
19 above is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 201, Los cles, California,
20
21 Erika Meji
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Envelope: 3082113 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No, 228175) Nick Rosenthal (State Bar No. 268297) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C, 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) Polaris Law Group LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 ‘Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class ll SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 13 RICARDO MACIAS, as an individual, and | Case No.: 16CV304263 on behalf of all others similarly situated, 14 [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Brian 15 Plaintiffs, C. Walsh, Dept. 1] 16 vs. [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT 17 SASCO, a California corporation; and 18 DOES | through 100, inclusive, Date: July 12, 2019 Time: 10;00 A.M. 19 Defendants, Dept.; 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT Plaintiff Ricardo Macias (“Plaintiff” or “Macias”), and the settling Defendant SASCO (“Defendant”) (together the “Parties”) have entered into the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”) to settle the above-captioned class action subject to the Court’s approval (the “Settlement”). This Court previously granted final approval of the Settlement as reflected by this Court’s December 4, 2018 Order (“Order”), Pursuant to the Order, the Court hereby issues this Amended Order and Judgment as follows: L BACKGROUND On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed 10 suit against Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. The i Complaint asserted claims for (1) violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226; (2) violation of Cal. Labor 12 Code § 2698, et seq.; (3) violation of Cal. Govt Code § 12940(m); (4) violation of Cal. Govt 13 Code § 12940(n); and (5) violation of Cal. Govt Code § 12940, ef seg. This Amended Order and 14 Judgment applies only as to the first and second causes of action as the remaining individual 15 causes of action have been privately settled between the Parties. 16 A. Class Members 17 The “Class Members” are defined as “all current and former employees of Defendants in 18 the State of California who were paid wages al any time during December 21, 2015 through 19 October 2, 2016.” 20 B Operation of the Settlement, 21 Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order dated July 27, 2018, this Court conditionally 22 certified the Class and granted preliminary approval to the Settlement. The Preliminary Approval 23 Order also approved of the proposed forms of notice and notice plan. The Court entered the 24 Preliminary Approval Order afier review and consideration of all of the pleadings filed in 25 connection herewith, and the oral presentations made by counsel at the hearing, 26 In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notices were sent to all 27 Class Members via first class mail. Furthermore, follow-up mailings were performed for returned 28 mail. The notice process was timely completed. 2 [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT This Court finds that the Settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non- collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, and does not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individuals, The Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. The Court further finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that Plaintiff has satisfied the standards for final approval of a class action settlement under California law. Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as approved for use by the California state court in Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800, 821 (1971), the trial court has discretion to certify a class where: 10 [Questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual il members, and that a class action is superior to the available 12 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy .». Fed, R, Civ. Proc, 23, 13 14 Certification of a settlement class is the appropriate judicial device under these circumstances, 15 A total of one thousand six hundred forty-six (1,646) Class Members were determined by 16 Phoenix Settlement Administrators (PSA), the Court-appoinied Class Action Settlement 17 Administrator, to be valid Class Members. The total amount to be distributed to valid Class 18 Members was $316,574.21. The Court approved Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the 19 amount of $193,675.79, Class Representative Service Payment to Plaintiff in the amount of 20 $7,500.00, PAGA penalty in the amount of $15,000.00, and administration fees in the amount of 21 $17,250.00. Defendant deposited the total amount of $550,000.00 into the Qualified Settlement 22 Fund (“QSF”) on December 27, 2018. 23 PSA issued and mailed checks from the QSF to each valid Claimant, Class Counsel, 24 Class Representative, PSA, and the LDWA on December 28, 2018. All settlement checks were 25 issued to void after 180 days from the date of issue. Therefore, the check-cashing deadline was 26 June 26, 2019. 27 To date, a total of two hundred thirty-two (232) checks, totaling $25,862.07, remain 28 uncashed. All disbursements were completed in compliance with the Stipulation of Class Action 3 [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1 The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed in this case. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the fitigation, the Class Representative, the other Members of the Settlement Class, and Defendant. 3 The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice of Pending Class Action 10 Settlement as disseminated to the Class Members, constituted the best notice practicable under 11 the circumstances to afl Persons within the definition of the Class, and fully met the requirements 12 of California law and due process under the United States Constitution. 13 4 The Court approves the settlement of the above-captioned action, as set forth in 14 the Settlement Agreement, as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settling Parties. The 15 Settling Parties are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement 16 Agreement. 17 5 Except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties 18 are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, 19 6 The Court hereby certifies the following Class for settlement purposes only: all 20 current and former employees of Defendants in the State of California who were paid wages at 21 any time during December 21, 2015 through October 2, 2016. 22, 7 With respect to the Class and for purposes of approving the settlement only and 23 for no other purpose, this Court finds and concludes that: (a) the members of the Class are 24 ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are 25 questions of law or fact common to the Class, and there is a well-defined community of interest 26 among Members of the Class with respect to the subject matter of the non-exempt claims in the 27 Litigation; (c) the claims of Class Representative is typical of the claims of the members of the 28 Class; (d) the Class Representative has fairly and adequately protected the interests of the 4 [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT members of the Class; (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f} the counsel of record for the Class Representative, i.e., Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as counsel for the Plaintiff in his individual and representative capacity and for the Class. 8 The Court approves the Individual Settlement Payment amounts, which shall be distributed pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 9, Pursuant to the Order, funds from uncashed checks will be distributed to Legal Aid at Work in the amount of $25,862.07 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 10. The Court hereby enters final judgment in this case in accordance with the terms 10 of the Settlement, Preliminary Approval Order, the Order, and this Amended Order and ll Judgment. Without affecting the finality of the Settlement or Judgment entered, this Court shall 12 retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties, including all 13 Settlement Class Members, for purposes of enforcing and interpreting this Amended Order and 14 Judgment and the Settlement. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED, Bx 16 Ce 4 17 DATED: J-feF 18 HON. BRIAN C. WALSH SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ] Jss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 8. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 2, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as; [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows: 10 Ronald A. Peters Elisa Nadeau IL Littler Mendelson, P.C, 12 50 West San Fernando, 15'" Floor San Jose, California 95113 13 Attorneys for Defendant Sasco, Ine. 14 x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above- 15 entitled document(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for 16 the above-entitled case, The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s) 17 in this office, 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 19 above is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 201, Los cles, California, 20 21 Erika Meji 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE