arrow left
arrow right
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
  • SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS JSBM INCcivil document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC Ronald W. Makarem (SBN 180442) Electronically Filed 2 William A. Baird (SBN 192675) 1/13/2021 10:51 PM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2440 Superior Court of California 3 Los Angeles, CA 90025-2440 County of Stanislaus Tel.: (310) 312-0299 Clerk of the Court 4 Fax: (310) 312-0296 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy 5 MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C. Michael H. Kim. Esq. (SBN 200792) $90 PAID 6 475 El Camino Real, Suite 30 Millbrae, California 94030 7 Telephone: (650) 697-8899 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Claudia Santillan; Susana D.J. Cuellar; and 9 Guadalupe Galvan 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 12 13 CLAUDIA SANTILLAN; SUSANA D.J. Case No. 2016536 CUELLAR; and GUADALUPE GALVAN, 14 individually and on behalf of all others [Assigned to Hon. Stacy P. Speiller similarly situated, Dept. 22] 15 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION 16 vs. AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 17 FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS JSBM, INC., a California Corporation; ACTION SETTLEMENT, FEES, AND 18 SERVICEMASTER CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, ENHANCEMENTS 19 dba SERVICEMASTER CLEAN; 20 GREENWORKS COMMERICAL [Filed Concurrently With Supporting JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., a California Declarations and [Proposed] Order] 21 Corporation; PAUL CAMPBELL, an individual; JEANNIE CAMPBELL, an Date: February 4, 2021 22 individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 4814-4130-2610.1 i Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives’ Enhancements [Case No. 2016536] Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 4, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. , or as soon thereafter as 2 the matter may be heard in Department 22 of the above-entitled court located at 801 10 th Street, 3 Modesto, California, 95354, Plaintiffs Claudia Santillan, Susana D.J. Cuellar, and Guadalupe 4 Galvan (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order to grant final approval of 5 the proposed class action settlement. 6 This Motion is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769, on the grounds 7 that the settlement reached with the Defendants JSBM, Inc.; Servicemaster 8 Residential/Commercial Services, dba Servicemaster Clean; and Greenworks Commercial 9 Janitorial Services, Inc., (“Defendants”) is within the range of reasonableness to be finally 10 approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable in all respects. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an order 11 approving the requested attorneys’ fees (in the amount of $ 66,666.67), actual litigation costs (in 12 the amount of up to $15,000) and an enhancement award of ($10,000) to be split equally among 13 the three class representatives, all as noticed in the Court approved Class Notice that was mailed to 14 all class members. Defendants do not oppose this motion. 15 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and 16 Authorities, the declarations of Ronald W. Makarem, Michael H. Kim, and the Claims 17 Administrator along with the exhibits attached thereto, the pleadings and other papers filed in this 18 action, and on any further oral or documentary evidence or argument presented at the time of 19 hearing. 20 Dated: January 12, 2021 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC 21 22 By: 23 Ronald W. Makarem William A. Baird 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Claudia 25 Santillan, Susana D.J. Cuellar, and Guadalupe Galvan, individually and 26 on behalf of all others similarly situated 27 28 ii Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….……………1 3 II. SUMMARY OF LITIGATION…………….………………………………………..…..2 4 A. Factual and Procedural History…………………………………………………………..2 5 6 B. Pleadings…………………………………………………………………………………3 7 C. Investigation……………………………………………………………………………..4 8 D. Meditation/Settlement Conference………………………………………………..……..5 9 E. Settlement………………………………………………………………………………..5 10 F. Carrying Out The Settlement Approval Process…………………………………………7 11 12 III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT IS FAIT AND REASONABLE………………………..7 13 A. The Settlement Agreement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiation………………….8 14 15 B. The Settlement Was Reached After Extensive Investigiation, Discovery, And Analysis of Class Claims…………………………………………………..……………..8 16 C. Plaintiffs’ Case Contains Significant Risks………………………………………….….10 17 18 D. The Settlement Provides Significant Monetary Benefits To The Settlement Class………………………………………………………………………………..…..10 19 E. Class Counsel Are Experienced Class Action Litigators…………………………..….10 20 21 F. There Were No Opt-Outs and No Objections………………………………………….11 22 G. The Payment To The Claims Administrator is Reasonable……………………………11 23 IV. THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES ARE APPROPRIATE…………………..12 24 A. The Common Fund Method is Appropriate And The Fee Percentage Requested Is 25 Reasonable……………………………………………………………………………..12 26 B. Counsel’s Lodestar Supports The Fee Request……………………………………..…16 27 1. The Hours Class Counsel Spent On This Action Were Reasonable and 28 Necessary…………………………………………………………………….…...…...17 PLEADING TITLE - 1 iii Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 2. Class Counsels’ Hourly Rates Are Reasonable And Consistent With The Market Place……………………………………………………………………….……..........17 2 3 V. PLAINTIFF’S COST REQUEST IS REASONABLE………………………………19 4 VI. THE REQUESTED INCENTIVE AWARD IS PROPER…………………………..19 5 VII. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLEADING TITLE - 2 iv Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 4 1150……………………………………………………………………………………………...9 5 Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257………………………………….4 6 Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2013) 297 F.R.D. 431, 451……………..13 7 Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 306 F.R.D. 245, 264……………….…19 8 9 Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 903………………………………………………..……14 10 Boeing Co. v. Van Gernert (1980) 444 U.S. 472,478………………………….……….12, 13, 15 11 Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc. (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2010) 2010 WL 2991486, *17…….……….…….14 12 Cotton v. Hinton (5th Cir. 1977) 559 F.2d 1326, 1330………………………………………….9 13 Counts v. Meriweather (C.D. Cal. 2016) 2016 WL 1165888, *3-4………………………..…..17 14 15 Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794……………………………………....8, 15 16 Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 437…………………………………………….…15 17 Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133……………………………………….……..16 18 Laffitte v. Robert Half lnt'l Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480………………………………….12, 15, 16 19 Laskey v. Int’I Union (6th Cir. 1981) 638 F.2d 954,957………………………………………..11 20 21 Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19 at 48………………………..13, 14, 15 22 Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1234, 1242…………………..9 23 Milstein v. Werner (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 57 F.R.D. 515, 524-525…………………………………..9 24 Missouri v. Jenkins (1989) 491 U.S. 274, 283-284……………………………..………..……..18 25 Oldham v. California Capital Fund, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 421,431…………………….7 26 27 Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 268, 272………………..…13 28 Rodriguez v. Cty. of L.A. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 96 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1023…………………..…….17 PLEADING TITLE - 3 v Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp. (9th Cir. 2009) 563 F.3d 948, 958………………………19 2 Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 34………………………………………………….12, 15 3 Shaw v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2000) 91 F. Supp. 2d 942, 4 972………………………………………………………………………………………...…….14 5 Shlensky v. Dorsey (3rd Cir. 1979) 574 F.2d 131, 148………….……………………………...11 6 Staton v. Boeing Co. (9th Cir. 2003) 327 F.3d 938, 977………………………………………..19 7 Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2010) 266 F.R.D. 482, 492……………….…14 8 9 Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc. (9th Cir. 1977) 577 F.2d 759, 769……………………….12, 15 10 Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. (9th Cir. 2002) 290 F.3d 1043, 1050-51………………………….18 11 Wershba v. Apple Computers, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245……………………….7 12 Williams v. Vukovich (6th Cir.1983) 720 F.2d 909, 922-923…………………………………....8 13 Williams v. MGM-Pathe Communicions Co. (9th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 1026, 1027………….…13 14 15 Statutes 16 California Code of Civil Procedure §382; California Rules of Court Rule 3.769……………….2 17 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (citing Newberg on Class Actions 12 §11.41………….………………….8 18 Newberg on Class Actions (5th Ed. 2016) §11.41……………….………………………….……8 19 Manual For Complex Litig. (4th Ed. 2004), §21.612……………………………………………8 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLEADING TITLE - 4 vi Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 By this Motion, Class Representative, Plaintiffs Claudia Santillan, Susana D.J. Cuellar, 3 and Guadalupe Galvan, (collectively referred to “Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs”) and 4 Defendants JSBM, Inc.; Servicemaster Residential/Commercial Services, dba Servicemaster 5 Clean; and Greenworks Commercial Janitorial Services, Inc., (collectively referred to as 6 “Defendants”) (together with the Class Members, jointly hereafter the “Parties”) seek an Order 7 from this Court granting final approval of the settlement reached in this matter by and between 8 the Class Representatives, on their own behalf, and on behalf of the Class Members on one hand, 9 and Defendants on the other. 10 As this Court previously found in preliminarily approving the Settlement on July 2, 2020, 11 the Settlement Agreement provides a significant benefit to the Settlement Class in the form of 12 monetary compensation of $200,000. The average recovery per class member is $ 155.54 with the 13 highest payout being $ 941.91. Information that has surfaced since this Court preliminarily 14 approved the Settlement only reiterates that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 15 Having been fully apprised of the Settlement terms through the Court approved notice process, it is 16 now clear that the Settlement Class overwhelmingly supports the Settlement. The most important 17 fact evidencing this support is that no Class Member opted out of the Settlement and no Class 18 Member has objected to the Settlement. As such, 100% of the class members are participating in 19 the Settlement. (Declaration of Daniel P. La of CPT). The result achieved is particularly 20 beneficial, given that the Settlement was achieved before Plaintiffs filed a motion for class 21 certification, thus avoiding further risks and mitigating additional costs and fees. 22 Having obtained valuable relief for the Class members, Class Counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ 23 fees in the amount one-third of the Gross Settlement as well as verified costs. The requested 24 award is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the common fund doctrine, in light of the 25 favorable results obtained without years of litigation, as well as the contingent risk that Class 26 Counsel assumed. 27 The Settlement is plainly fair, reasonable and adequate in light of the probable outcome of 28 further litigation relating to liability and damages issues. As this Court knows from the Motion for ¤ 1 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [Case No. 34-2014-00172517] Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 Preliminary Approval, the Parties were able to reach a Settlement Agreement resolving the 2 disputes in this matter after a hotly contested but professional settlement conference before the 3 well respected mediator David Perrault ("Mr. Perrault"). Because the Settlement Agreement was 4 reached at arms-length before a well-respected mediator, the Court can presume, under California 5 law, that it is non-collusive, fair and reasonable. Each side vigorously advocated for its position, 6 and eventually after the conclusion of the settlement conference, an arms-length settlement was 7 reached. In summary, Class Counsel have achieved an excellent result in this litigation, embodied 8 in the Settlement Agreement. The proposed class settlement provides significant monetary benefits 9 to Class Members and is a product of diligent, aggressive, and expeditious efforts of Class 10 Counsel. 11 For all of the reasons expressed herein, the Parties respectfully submit that the Settlement 12 Agreement, previously approved by this Court at the preliminary approval proceedings, meets the 13 applicable criteria for this Court's final approval, and that it is fair, adequate, reasonable and in 14 the best interest of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, final approval should be granted pursuant 15 to California Code of Civil Procedure §382; California Rules of Court Rule 3.769. 16 II. SUMMARY OF LITIGATION 17 A. Factual and Procedural History 18 This case is a putative class action alleging violations of California state law. Defendant 19 Greenworks Commercial Janitorial Services, Inc. (“Greenworks”) provides cleaning and janitorial 20 services for office buildings throughout Stanislaus County. Paul and Jeannie Campbell are the 21 owners and operators of Greenworks. 1 Defendants employ hundreds of non-exempt hourly 22 employees (approximately 584 employees during the class period) who clean the various offices 23 with whom Defendants’ contract. Employees regularly travel to two or more office locations on 24 each shift, driving their own vehicles to each location, and are required to complete their work at 25 each location within a budgeted amount of time. (Declaration of Ronald Makarem “Makarem 26 1 27 Greenworks previously operated as JSBM, Inc., a franchise of ServiceMaster, but to escape from their franchise agreement with ServiceMaster, Greenworks, through Paul and Jeannie 28 Campbell “shut down” JSBM and reopened as Greenworks in August 2016. These entities are collectively referred to as “Defendants”. 2 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 Decl.”, ¶ 2). 2 Plaintiff Claudia Santillan, Susana D.J. Cuellar, and Guadalupe Galvan, (“Plaintiffs”) 3 were each employed by Defendants, either when the business was known as JSBM, or when it 4 was re-formed as Greenworks at some point during the class period. During the time that they 5 were employed they worked at various work sites cleaning offices and were subject to the same 6 policies and procedures as all other hourly employees including but not limited to Defendants’ 7 payment and pay stub policies. (Id. at ¶ 3). 8 B. Pleadings 9 On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff Claudia Santillan filed a class action complaint against 10 Defendants JSBM, Inc. and ServiceMaster Brands, LLC in Stanislaus County Superior Court 11 alleging:(1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to 12 provide meal and rest periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (5) failure to pay all 13 wages earned on a regular pay period; (6) failure to pay all earned wages upon termination; (7) 14 failure to indemnify for work expenses; and (8) unfair competition. Plaintiff amended the 15 complaint three times, such that the operative Complaint, filed on August 22, 2018, includes 16 Claudia Santillan, Susana D.J. Cuellar, and Guadalupe Galvan as the named Plaintiffs, and JSBM, 17 Inc., ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services, dba ServiceMaster Clean; Greenworks 18 Commercial Janitorial Services, Inc., Paul Campbell, and Jeannie Campbell (collectively 19 "Defendants") as Defendants. (the operative “Complaint”). (Id. at ¶ 4). 20 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants, throughout the class period, across both iterations of the 21 business, had facially non-compliant meal and rest period policies, as well as, non-compliant 22 policies for compensating for travel time and reimbursing for mileage traveled by putative class 23 members. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants pressured employees to skip or take non- 24 compliant meal and rest periods in order to complete additional work, as evidenced by Defendants’ 25 own time records, which show that meal periods were regularly less than thirty minutes in length 26 and were frequently taken after the fifth hour of work. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants failed 27 to compensate employees properly for drive time between various worksites as well as failed to 28 properly reimburse employees for the mileage they drove between locations. What’s more, 3 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants had a facially non-compliant rest period policy that required 2 employees to remain on the work site for their rest periods, in violation of California law under 3 Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257. As a result of these violations, 4 Plaintiffs sought to recover meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid 5 expense reimbursements, penalties for unpaid wages upon termination, penalties for non-compliant 6 wage statements, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and attorneys’ fees. (Id. at ¶ 5). 7 Defendants contend that they at all times complied with California law. Defendants assert 8 that they properly paid employees for all time worked and that they properly reimbursed 9 employees for all expenses incurred. Defendants further contend that they provided Plaintiffs and 10 other putative class members with compliant meal and rest periods, and that to the extent any 11 employee did not take a compliant meal or rest period, the reason for the non-compliant meal or 12 rest period would be an individualized issue that would preclude class certification. (Id. at ¶ 6). 13 C. Investigation 14 Before filing the lawsuit, Class Counsel investigated and researched the facts and 15 circumstances underlying the pertinent issues and the laws applicable thereto. This required 16 thorough discussions between Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs, as well as preliminary research 17 into the various legal issues and employment practices involved in the case. After conducting 18 their initial investigation, Class Counsel determined that Plaintiffs’ claims were well-suited for 19 class action adjudication owing to what appeared to be a common set of policies and procedures 20 that impacted Plaintiffs and other putative class members in a similar fashion. (Id. at ¶ 7). 21 After filing the lawsuit, Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation of the facts 22 and claims giving rise to the action, including: 23 (1) reviewing and analyzing time and payroll records and Defendants’ written policies and 24 procedures; 25 (2) researching the applicable law and evaluating potential defenses; 26 (3) evaluating the damages based on countervailing interpretations of California law; 27 (4) interviewing numerous class members; and, 28 4 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 (5) reviewing other documentation provided by Defendants, including information relating 2 to Defendants’ financial condition. (Id. at ¶ 8). 3 Defendants, for their part, vigorously contested liability, the amount of claimed damages, 4 and the propriety of class certification. After Class Counsel analyzed the relevant documentary 5 and testamentary evidence, Class Counsel determined that this case was appropriate for resolution 6 via settlement. (Id. at ¶ 9). 7 D. Mediation/ Settlement Conference 8 After over four years of litigation, the parties agreed to participate in mediation with the 9 well respected mediator David Perrault, which took place on May 20, 2019. With the assistance of 10 the mediator, the parties were able to agree on the parameters for a settlement of the class action 11 claims and memorialized that agreement in an MOU. Over the next several months the parties 12 negotiated the details of the long form settlement agreement for which Plaintiffs now seek the 13 Court’s approval. (Id. at ¶ 10)(a). 14 E. Settlement 15 Settlement Class 16 "Class Member(s)," "Class" and "Settlement Class" means all former and current non- 17 exempt hourly employees who were employed by Defendants in California during the time period 18 between August 17, 2011 up through the date of Preliminary Approval. 448 of the Class Members 19 were employed at JSBM, Inc. between August 17, 2011 and September 30, 2016 (the "JSBM 20 Employees"). 210 Class Members had been employed at Greenworks Commercial Janitorial 21 Services, Inc. since October 1, 2016 (the "GreenWorks Employees"). 74 Class Members worked 22 originally at JSBM, Inc., and continued working for the company when it re-formed as Greenworks 23 Commercial Janitorial Services, Inc., and therefore fall into both of the two groups of employees. 24 The total number of Class Members, including those who worked for both JSBM and Greenworks 25 is approximately 584. (Id. at ¶ 12). 26 Settlement Consideration 27 All claims brought on behalf of the Class shall be fully and finally resolved for a 28 maximum settlement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). (Id., ¶13). The 5 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 Gross Settlement Amount is non-reversionary and no portion of the Settlement Amount will be 2 returned to Defendants. (Id., ¶ 14). The following amounts will be deducted from the Gross 3 Settlement Amount, with the amount remaining after these deductions constituting the Net 4 Settlement Amount: 5 • Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Up to 1/3 of the Gross settlement amount or $ 66,666.67 plus up to $15,000 in verified litigation costs; 6 • Class Representative Enhancement Award: Up to $10,000 to named Plaintiffs that is 7 split into three equal shares of approximately $3,333.33 for their services as class 8 representatives; 9 • Settlement Administration Costs: Up to $17,500 from the Gross Settlement Amount for the costs associated with administration of the Settlement. 10 11 • Net Settlement Amount: 12 Thus, the net Settlement amount will be approximately $90,833.33. Each participating 13 Class Member’s Individual Settlement Payment will be calculated by dividing the Net Settlement 14 Amount by the total number of workweeks worked by participating Class Members during the Class Period to determine a per workweek amount, and then multiplying that per workweek 15 amount by the number of workweeks worked by each individual participating Class Member. 16 Two-thirds of the Net Settlement Amount will be divided among the JSBM Employees 17 based on the number of workweeks worked by each JSBM Employee as a percentage of the total 18 number of workweeks worked by all JSBM Employees between August 17, 2011 and September 19 30, 2016. 20 One-Third of the Net Settlement Amount will be divided among the Greenworks 21 Employees based on the number of workweeks worked by each Greenworks Employee as a 22 percentage of the total number of workweeks worked by all Greenworks Employees between 23 October 1, 2016 and the date of Preliminary Approval. (Id., ¶¶ 15-21). 24 Assuming this Court makes no modification, Class Members shall recover an estimated 25 gross average recovery of $ 155.54 with the highest payout being $ 941.91. 26 Because of Defendants’ precarious financial condition, the Settlement Agreement provides 27 that the Gross Settlement Amount will be paid by Defendants as follows: Within three (3) months 28 6 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 after the Effective Settlement Date (the date upon which the Court grants final approval of the 2 settlement). Defendants are required to deposit the initial $40,000 of the Gross Settlement 3 Amount with the Settlement Administrator. Defendants will then make nineteen (19) monthly 4 payments of $5,263.16 to the Settlement Administrator, beginning one month after making the 5 initial $40,000 payment. Finally, Defendants will make a final payment of $60,000 to the 6 Settlement Administrator twenty (20) months after making the initial $40,000 payment. The date 7 that the final payment of $60,000 is made is the "Funding Date." Settlement checks will be 8 distributed ten (10) business days after the Funding Date. (Id., ¶¶ 22-23). 9 F. Carrying Out The Settlement Approval Process 10 On July 2, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval. As set 11 forth in the declaration of Daniel P. La, the Settlement Administrator CPT Group, Inc., has 12 dutifully and successfully carried out the settlement notice process. Indeed, after conducting a 13 search of the National Change of Address Database, CPT mailed the class notice of this 14 settlement on November 2, 2020. No members of the class chose to opt out of the settlement or 15 object to it after receiving the notice. 16 Additionally, since approval, the parties’ have expended additional and ongoing efforts 17 completing the tasks required to effectuate the settlement, including working with the settlement 18 administrator, finalizing class notice and answering relevant questions. In addition, class counsel 19 has spent many hours completing the final approval papers for this settlement and will spend 20 additional hours attending the final approval hearing as well as following up on the settlement to 21 ensure that class members are actually paid. (Makarem Decl.”, ¶ 10)(b). 22 III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION 23 SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE 24 ''In approving the settlement of a class action, a court exercises its discretion in 25 determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable." Oldham v. California Capital Fund, 26 Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 421,431; see also Wershba v. Apple Computers, Inc. (2001) 91 27 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245. A presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached 28 through arms'- length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel 7 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the 2 percentage of objectors is small. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (citing 3 Newberg on Class Actions 12 §11.41 {3rd ed. 1992). Where there is no extrinsic evidence of 4 fraud or collusion, the Court should assume that settlement negotiations were conducted in good 5 faith. Newberg on Class Actions (3rd15 ed.), section 11.51, p. 11-126) 6 A. The Settlement Agreement Resulted from Arm's-Length Negotiations 7 The presumption is that a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable when it is the result 8 of arm's-length negotiations. See Williams v. Vukovich (6th Cir.1983) 720 F.2d 909, 922-923 9 ("The court should defer to the judgment of experienced counsel who has competently evaluated 10 the strength of his proofs"); In re Excess Value Ins. Coverage Litig. (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2004) No. 11 M-21-84 (RMB) 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14822, at *34 ("Where ‘the Court finds that the 12 settlement is the product of arm's length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel 13 knowledgeable in complex class litigation, the Settlement will enjoy a presumption of fairness'"); 14 In re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis Liab. Litig. (N.D. Ohio 2001) 204 F.R.D. 359, 380 (granting 15 preliminary settlement approval) ("when a settlement is the result of extensive negotiations by 16 experienced counsel, the Court should presume it is fair"); 4 Rubenstein, et al., Newberg on 17 Class Actions (5th Ed. 2016) §11.41 at p. 90; Manual For Complex Litig. (4th Ed. 2004), §21.612. 18 The proposed settlement here is the product of arm's-length negotiations, assisted by the 19 well-respected respected mediator David Perrault for which the Parties prepared by engaging in 20 discovery and exchanging substantial relevant information and documents. 21 Counsel for the Parties have investigated the applicable law as applied to the facts 22 discovered regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged claims, the potential defenses thereto, and Plaintiffs’ 23 claimed damages. Armed with this extensive body of knowledge, the Parties engaged in a full, 24 complete, and ultimately a successful mediation. At all times, the negotiations leading to the 25 Settlement have been adversarial, non-collusive and at arm's length. 26 B. The Settlement Was Reached After Extensive Investigation, Discovery, And 27 Analysis of Class Claims 28 Prior to the mediation, the Parties diligently engaged in both formal discovery and informal 8 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion And Unopposed Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Fees, And Class Representatives Enhancements Doc ID: 29ea399b451487b59a4f0efce2425f84937c633a 1 discovery which yielded information and documentation regarding the claims set forth in the 2 litigation. Plaintiffs also obtained from Defendants a sampling of time and payroll records for the 3 class, Defendants’ employee handbook(s), policies and procedures, the total number of class 4 members during the class period, and the average hourly rate, among other things. Furthermore, 5 counsel for the Parties have investigated the law as applied to the facts discovered regarding 6 Plaintiffs’ alleged claims, the potential defenses thereto, and the potential damages claimed by 7 Plaintiffs. While counsel may disagree on the facts and legal implications thereof, counsel on both 8 sides have completed sufficient work to ensure that the presentation made to the Court in the 9 course of proposing the Settlement at issue is complete, thorough, and accurate. 10 Based on this thorough investigation of the facts, Class Counsel believes that the 11 Settlement Amount of $200,000 not only meets the reasonable standard, but also constitutes an 12 outstanding resul