Lopez v. Eurofins Scientific, Inc

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 RITO LOPEZ, Case No. 21-cv-08652-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY 13 v. APPROVAL 14 EUROFINS SCIENTIFIC, INC, et al., Re: ECF No. 56 15 Defendants. [16] 17 In this putative class action, the plaintiff, who works as a packer, sued his alleged employers 18 — Eurofins Scientific, Environmental Sampling Supply, and TestAmerica Laboratories — 19 claiming that they did not pay him for the following off-the-clock work: (1) completing 20 temperature checks and COVID-19 screening questionnaires before clocking in for work (one 21 minute and often longer) and (2) waiting in line to clock back in after meal breaks (at least two 22 additional minutes). As a result, he claims that the defendants failed to pay the class members for 23 all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, did not provide accurate 24 wage statements, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to timely pay wages during [27] 1 employment and at termination, are subject to penalties under the California Private Attorneys 2 General Act (PAGA), and violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).1 3 The parties settled their case,2 and the plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the 4 proposed settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).3 The court held a hearing on 5 June 22, 2023, and asks the parties to address certain language in the settlement’s release before 6 the court preliminarily approves the settlement. 7 The existing release is potentially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit allows only releases that are 8 “based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action.” 9 Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-CV-04955-LHK, 2020 WL 836673 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 10 2020) (quoting Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, “[d]istrict courts 11 in this Circuit have declined to approve settlement agreements where such agreements would 12 release claims that are ‘factually related’ to the claims in the instant litigation.” Chavez v. PVH 13 Corp., No. 13-CV-01797-LHK, 2015 WL 581382 , at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (collecting 14 cases). 15 The settlement here releases “any and all claims alleged, or that could have been alleged based 16 on the facts alleged, related to, or ascertained in the Action.”4 The “related to” language is 17 addressed in the above cases. The “ascertained in” language could be fine but is nonspecific. The 18 court thus asks the parties to update the court by July 6, 2023 about their plan to address the 19 release language. Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 21.61 (a court may impose 20 “conditions for approval” and “[t]he parties might be willing to make changes before the notice of 21 the settlement agreement is sent to the class members if the judge makes such suggestions at the 22 preliminary approval stage”) (citing In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 CIV. 0648 23 (LAK), 2001 WL 170792 , at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001), aff’d, 42 F. App’x 511 (2d Cir. 2002), [25] 1 Second Am. Compl. (SAC) – ECF No. 55. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 26 (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 2 Settlement Agreement, Ex. A to Cottrell Decl.  ECF No. 56-2 at 2–24. [27] 3 Mot.  ECF No. 56. 1 and Romstadt v. Apple Computer, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 701, 707 (N.D. Ohio 1996)). As discussed at 2 || the hearing, a stipulated complaint could be part of the solution. For now, the court also sets a 3 status hearing for July 13, 2023 on the release issue. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 22, 2023 Lif EC 6 OO eS LAUREL BEELER 7 United States Magistrate Judge [10] 1] [13] «4 o [16] Z 18