Preview
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
FEB 1 0"2020
‘
Clerko [e room
By
u D PUTYCLERK -
\OOOQoxmAuNH_
‘
I-
Jun
\
r
'
Judgment
'
2242334
3’
I/llllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO
COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION
RACHEL MONIZ, oh behalf of the State of
'
Case No. 17CIV01736
California and aggrieved employees, ‘
Assigned for All Purposes to ,
Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
v~.
[WED] JUDGMENT
ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1—50,
inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017'
~
NNNNNNNNNr—‘D—‘H—nr—‘r—Ap—AHy—ahn
Trial Date: Vacated
Defendants.
WQQM¢WNHO©mflamkwNHO
Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA
Settlement, which came gm for hearing on October l6, 2019' at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the
above-entitled Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. In addition, denied-intervenor
Péfila Correa and her counsel Baker Curtis & Schwartz P.C. (collectively, “Correa”) filed a
Motion for Attorney Fees and an Incentive Payment, which also came on for hearing on October
16, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Coun, the Honorable Marie S.
’
Weiner presiding.
Withvrespect to the Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, the Court has
l .
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736
reviewed the materials and information submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.
(“Defendant”), and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), and
has considered the arguments presented by Plaintiff, Defendant, and the LWDA during the
October 16, 2019 hearing. With réspect to Correa’s Motion forAttorney Fees and an Incentive
Payment,
\OOONONLJI-bwwr—A
the Court has reviewed the materials and information submitted by Correa, Plaintiff,
and Defendant, and has considered the arguments presented by Correé, Plaintiff, and Defendant
during the October 16, 2019 hearing.
V
The Court issued an order on “November. 22, 2019 granting approval of the parties’ .
PAGA settlement, and on January 15, 2020 gn order '(1) approving Plaintiff’s requested
attorneys’ feeé afid costs; (2) approving Plaintiff’s requested incentive award in part; and (3)
H'O
denying Cérreajs request for attorney’s fees and incentive payfn'ent in full.
N ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ'UDGED, AND DECREED that
‘in Court’s November
W Judgment shall be entered accordance with the 22, 2019 Order Granting
$ Approval of PAGA Settlement and the parties’ Settlement Agrgement,‘ and the Court’s January
UI
15, 2020, Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, as follows:
O\
1. All capitalized terms below shall h'avé the sathe definitions and meaning as that
I
fl provided, in the parties’ Settlement Agreement.
I
0°
2. The
NNNNNNNNNHHi—hp—Ay—AHHHp—AH
Cour: approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Labor Code séctipn
\O
2699(l)(2) because the settlement 'is fair, reasonable, adequate, and advances the purposes of the
Labor Code. Although there is no express authority for the Lébor Workfofce and Development
H,O
Agency to obj ect or comment upon this settlement, the Court allowed the state agency to submit
N comments and objections, and to argue with respect to whether the Settlement Agreement
w shclmld be approved. The Court finds that ihe’ Labor Workforce and Development Agency’s
h objections, comments, and arguments afe unfounded’W. vn r 6 380 n 3 b ’8
UI
—
aml/or onpersow'vs-
Ox l
The parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached to (1') Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Declaration
of Carolyn Hunt Cottrell In Support of Joint Motion To ‘Approve Settlement’Pursuan‘t to Private
Q Attorneys General Act of 2004 filed on June 3, 2019; and (2) again as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration
of Kyle G. Bates In Support of Renewed Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of
00
Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, filed on
September 6, 2019. .
.
2
:
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736
.
o—A
3. The Court specifically approves and awards the following amounts, as they are
N fair,reasonable, adequate, and advance the purposes of the‘ Labor Code:
w a. The Total Settlement Amount of $4,500,000 plus any additional payment
A made pursuant to Section III.I of the Settlement Agreemexit is approved.
Uh
In accordance with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
Os
2004, Labor Code sections 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”), seventy-five percent
Q (75%) of the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the State of
0°
California and twenty-five percent (25%) pf the Net Settlement Amount
\O will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Members. Any uncashed
settlement checks will be remitted to the California State Controller’s
Unclaimed Property Funduwhere they can be recovered by the appropriate
PAGA Settlement Member pursuant to the applicable rules governing that
office.
Plaintiff‘s Counsel is awarded $1,500,000 in reasonablg attorneys’ fees
and mm. in reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The
be.
awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall deducted from the Total
Settlement Amount.
Plaintiff is awarded-LL12_,0_00. as an additional payment in addition to
(1'.e.,
WVQm-AWNHOOWQO\M#WNHO
her share of PAGA penalties from the Settlement) for acting as the PAGA
NNN'NN'N-NNNHHHQHHHHHH
representative plaintiff and for agreeing to a broader release ‘on her
personal ciaims against Defendant and all Releaséd Parties. This award
shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount.
'
A maximum of $78,000 shall be allocated for payment of costs, fées, and
No
'
expenses to the Settlement Administrator. additional cosfs, fees, or ‘
expenses shall bé incurred by the Séttlemenfi Admirfistrator without prior
Court approval. Any amount paid to the Settlement Administrator for
séttlement administration costs, fees, or expenses shall be deducted from
the Total Settlement Amount.
-
3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736
4.\ The Court approves the release provided by the Settlement Agreement. Under
I
the térms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff, the PAGA Settlement Members, and the State
of California (including the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Deparfinent of
Industrial Relations) release Defendant and all Released Parties from all “Released Claims.”
“Released Claims” means any and all known and unknown claims under the PAGA against the
Released
\Oooqchu-b'up
Parties that were or could have been pled based on the factual allegatiofis of the
Complaint, including but not iimifed to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant unlawfully
prohibited current and former employees from: (1) disclosing certain information includiné but
not limited to salary, benefits, wages, identities of other employees, training and operations
10 and office protocols and systems and programs and systems; Ithe wages
methods, (2) discussing
11 ‘of others, engaging in. whistleblower activity, or disclOsing or discuséing their working
12 conditions: This includes, but is not limited to, PAGA claims for violation of California Labor
13 Code sections-232, 232.5, 432.5, 1102.5, 1197.5(k), and 2699 et seq. For avoidance of doubt,
14 the only claims beir11greleased by the Labor and Workforpe Development Agency and PAGA
15 Settlement Members are claims that were or could have brought under the PAGA, based on the _
‘
16 allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint.
17 5. The Court isnot making any findings as to the merits of the claims asserted in
18' this Action and nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as an admission of liability or
I
19 wrongdoing by Defendant or any other entity.
20 6. IND Class Action Administration is appointed as the Settlement Administrator.
21 7. The Court finds that the form of the revised Notice Letter submitted as Exhibit 2
22 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates filed on June 14, 2019 is adequate and reasonable, 5nd
23 approves the Settlement Administrator providing notice to the PAGA"! Settlement Members in
24 the aforementioned form.
25 8. No “incentive payment’; or attorneys’ fees or costs are awarded to Correa or her
26 counsel. The Court finds thaf Correa and her counsel have not demonstrated that they conferred
27 a significant benefit upon the PAGA Settlement Members or the State of California beyond the
28 benefits already secured by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Nor hav_e qurea and her counsel demonstrated
4
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736
that they have satisfied the elements for a “catalyst’.’ fee award.
9. The Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting Approval of PAGA Settlement
and January 15, 2020 Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards are hereby
incorporated here in full by reference.
10.
\OOOQONLh-hwwg—n
Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall submit a copy
of this Judgment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; 3nd Ft | ‘ %A 53%
Norms oi- Eat
r5911“
o(- Suds MM? upon ad's: ,Ocaa's wvnu'
retains Jurisdiction, including ursuant o California Code of Civil
Procedure section 644.6, over the Parties and this Action.
>—-
n—a-
v_-
DATE: 21/7/80
‘
I
§
,
/M
HON, MARIE S. WEINER
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
;—-
4816—8522-1300.v. 1
v—-‘n—-
:—-
7—-
H
H
WQQMhWNF-‘OCWQGMAWNHO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
5 .
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Cage No. I7CIVO] 736
SERVICE LIST
Moniz v. Adecco, PAGA N0. 17CIV01 736
as of July 20 1 9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL
DAVID LEIMBACH
'
KYLE BATES
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
'2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
‘
Emeryville, CA 94608
(415) 421-7100
Attorneys for Defendant:
MIA FARBER
ADAM SIEGEL
PHILIP JOHNSON
JACKSON LEWIS PC
725 South Figueroa, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 689-0404
DYLAN CARP
SCOTT JANG ‘
JACKSON LEWIS PC
50 California Street, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, CA 941 11
(41 5) 394-9400
Attorney for “Proposed InterVenor”:
CHRIS BAKER
DEBORAH SCHWARTZ
BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ PC
One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94.1 1 1
(415) 433-1064 \
Preview
FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY FEB 1 0"2020 ‘ Clerko [e room By u D PUTYCLERK - \OOOQoxmAuNH_ ‘ I- Jun \ r ' Judgment ' 2242334 3’ I/llllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION RACHEL MONIZ, oh behalf of the State of ' Case No. 17CIV01736 California and aggrieved employees, ‘ Assigned for All Purposes to , Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 v~. [WED] JUDGMENT ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1—50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017' ~ NNNNNNNNNr—‘D—‘H—nr—‘r—Ap—AHy—ahn Trial Date: Vacated Defendants. WQQM¢WNHO©mflamkwNHO Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, which came gm for hearing on October l6, 2019' at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. In addition, denied-intervenor Péfila Correa and her counsel Baker Curtis & Schwartz P.C. (collectively, “Correa”) filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and an Incentive Payment, which also came on for hearing on October 16, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Coun, the Honorable Marie S. ’ Weiner presiding. Withvrespect to the Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, the Court has l . [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736 reviewed the materials and information submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), and has considered the arguments presented by Plaintiff, Defendant, and the LWDA during the October 16, 2019 hearing. With réspect to Correa’s Motion forAttorney Fees and an Incentive Payment, \OOONONLJI-bwwr—A the Court has reviewed the materials and information submitted by Correa, Plaintiff, and Defendant, and has considered the arguments presented by Correé, Plaintiff, and Defendant during the October 16, 2019 hearing. V The Court issued an order on “November. 22, 2019 granting approval of the parties’ . PAGA settlement, and on January 15, 2020 gn order '(1) approving Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ feeé afid costs; (2) approving Plaintiff’s requested incentive award in part; and (3) H'O denying Cérreajs request for attorney’s fees and incentive payfn'ent in full. N ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ'UDGED, AND DECREED that ‘in Court’s November W Judgment shall be entered accordance with the 22, 2019 Order Granting $ Approval of PAGA Settlement and the parties’ Settlement Agrgement,‘ and the Court’s January UI 15, 2020, Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, as follows: O\ 1. All capitalized terms below shall h'avé the sathe definitions and meaning as that I fl provided, in the parties’ Settlement Agreement. I 0° 2. The NNNNNNNNNHHi—hp—Ay—AHHHp—AH Cour: approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Labor Code séctipn \O 2699(l)(2) because the settlement 'is fair, reasonable, adequate, and advances the purposes of the Labor Code. Although there is no express authority for the Lébor Workfofce and Development H,O Agency to obj ect or comment upon this settlement, the Court allowed the state agency to submit N comments and objections, and to argue with respect to whether the Settlement Agreement w shclmld be approved. The Court finds that ihe’ Labor Workforce and Development Agency’s h objections, comments, and arguments afe unfounded’W. vn r 6 380 n 3 b ’8 UI — aml/or onpersow'vs- Ox l The parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached to (1') Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Declaration of Carolyn Hunt Cottrell In Support of Joint Motion To ‘Approve Settlement’Pursuan‘t to Private Q Attorneys General Act of 2004 filed on June 3, 2019; and (2) again as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates In Support of Renewed Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of 00 Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, filed on September 6, 2019. . . 2 : [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736 . o—A 3. The Court specifically approves and awards the following amounts, as they are N fair,reasonable, adequate, and advance the purposes of the‘ Labor Code: w a. The Total Settlement Amount of $4,500,000 plus any additional payment A made pursuant to Section III.I of the Settlement Agreemexit is approved. Uh In accordance with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of Os 2004, Labor Code sections 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”), seventy-five percent Q (75%) of the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the State of 0° California and twenty-five percent (25%) pf the Net Settlement Amount \O will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Members. Any uncashed settlement checks will be remitted to the California State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Funduwhere they can be recovered by the appropriate PAGA Settlement Member pursuant to the applicable rules governing that office. Plaintiff‘s Counsel is awarded $1,500,000 in reasonablg attorneys’ fees and mm. in reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The be. awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. Plaintiff is awarded-LL12_,0_00. as an additional payment in addition to (1'.e., WVQm-AWNHOOWQO\M#WNHO her share of PAGA penalties from the Settlement) for acting as the PAGA NNN'NN'N-NNNHHHQHHHHHH representative plaintiff and for agreeing to a broader release ‘on her personal ciaims against Defendant and all Releaséd Parties. This award shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. ' A maximum of $78,000 shall be allocated for payment of costs, fées, and No ' expenses to the Settlement Administrator. additional cosfs, fees, or ‘ expenses shall bé incurred by the Séttlemenfi Admirfistrator without prior Court approval. Any amount paid to the Settlement Administrator for séttlement administration costs, fees, or expenses shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. - 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736 4.\ The Court approves the release provided by the Settlement Agreement. Under I the térms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff, the PAGA Settlement Members, and the State of California (including the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Deparfinent of Industrial Relations) release Defendant and all Released Parties from all “Released Claims.” “Released Claims” means any and all known and unknown claims under the PAGA against the Released \Oooqchu-b'up Parties that were or could have been pled based on the factual allegatiofis of the Complaint, including but not iimifed to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant unlawfully prohibited current and former employees from: (1) disclosing certain information includiné but not limited to salary, benefits, wages, identities of other employees, training and operations 10 and office protocols and systems and programs and systems; Ithe wages methods, (2) discussing 11 ‘of others, engaging in. whistleblower activity, or disclOsing or discuséing their working 12 conditions: This includes, but is not limited to, PAGA claims for violation of California Labor 13 Code sections-232, 232.5, 432.5, 1102.5, 1197.5(k), and 2699 et seq. For avoidance of doubt, 14 the only claims beir11greleased by the Labor and Workforpe Development Agency and PAGA 15 Settlement Members are claims that were or could have brought under the PAGA, based on the _ ‘ 16 allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint. 17 5. The Court isnot making any findings as to the merits of the claims asserted in 18' this Action and nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as an admission of liability or I 19 wrongdoing by Defendant or any other entity. 20 6. IND Class Action Administration is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. 21 7. The Court finds that the form of the revised Notice Letter submitted as Exhibit 2 22 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates filed on June 14, 2019 is adequate and reasonable, 5nd 23 approves the Settlement Administrator providing notice to the PAGA"! Settlement Members in 24 the aforementioned form. 25 8. No “incentive payment’; or attorneys’ fees or costs are awarded to Correa or her 26 counsel. The Court finds thaf Correa and her counsel have not demonstrated that they conferred 27 a significant benefit upon the PAGA Settlement Members or the State of California beyond the 28 benefits already secured by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Nor hav_e qurea and her counsel demonstrated 4 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736 that they have satisfied the elements for a “catalyst’.’ fee award. 9. The Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting Approval of PAGA Settlement and January 15, 2020 Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards are hereby incorporated here in full by reference. 10. \OOOQONLh-hwwg—n Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall submit a copy of this Judgment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; 3nd Ft | ‘ %A 53% Norms oi- Eat r5911“ o(- Suds MM? upon ad's: ,Ocaa's wvnu' retains Jurisdiction, including ursuant o California Code of Civil Procedure section 644.6, over the Parties and this Action. >—- n—a- v_- DATE: 21/7/80 ‘ I § , /M HON, MARIE S. WEINER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE ;—- 4816—8522-1300.v. 1 v—-‘n—- :—- 7—- H H WQQMhWNF-‘OCWQGMAWNHO N N N N N N N N N 5 . [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Cage No. I7CIVO] 736 SERVICE LIST Moniz v. Adecco, PAGA N0. 17CIV01 736 as of July 20 1 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL DAVID LEIMBACH ' KYLE BATES SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP '2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 ‘ Emeryville, CA 94608 (415) 421-7100 Attorneys for Defendant: MIA FARBER ADAM SIEGEL PHILIP JOHNSON JACKSON LEWIS PC 725 South Figueroa, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 689-0404 DYLAN CARP SCOTT JANG ‘ JACKSON LEWIS PC 50 California Street, Ninth Floor San Francisco, CA 941 11 (41 5) 394-9400 Attorney for “Proposed InterVenor”: CHRIS BAKER DEBORAH SCHWARTZ BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ PC One California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94.1 1 1 (415) 433-1064 \