Cordova v. BAE Systems, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 AIMEE CORDOVA, Individually and Case No.: 20-CV-2425 JLS (MDD) on Behalf of Other Members of the Public [12] Similarly Situated, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED Plaintiff, MOTIONS FOR (A) FINAL [14] v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 15 SETTLEMENT AND BAE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY (B) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 16 SOLUTIONS & SERVICES, INC.; and COSTS; AND (2) ENTERING DOES 1–10, INCLUSIVE, 17 JUDGMENT Defendants. [18] (ECF Nos. 31 & 32) [19] 20 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Aimee Cordova’s unopposed Motions for 21 (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Final Approval Mot.,” ECF No. 32) and 22 (2) Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Fee Mot.,” ECF No. 31). Also before the Court is the 23 Declaration of Kevin Lee (“Lee Decl.,” ECF No. 32-5) on behalf of the Settlement 24 Administrator. The Court held a hearing on May 26, 2022. See ECF No. 34. Because the 25 Settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 26 unopposed Final Approval Motion. Further, because the requested attorneys’ fees and 27 costs are reasonable, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Fee Motion. 28 / / / 1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 2 On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff Aimee Cordova filed a class action suit in 3 California Superior Court alleging violations of California’s Labor and Business and 4 Professions Codes as well as the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) on behalf 5 of forensic analysts employed by Defendants BAE Systems, Inc., and BAE Systems 6 Technology & Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). See Decl. of Taylor Wemmer 7 in Support of Defendants’ Notice of Removal, Ex. A (ECF No. 1-3). On December 11, 8 2020, Defendants removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to the United States District Court for the 9 Southern District of California. See ECF No. 1 (“Not. of Removal”). Defendants 10 concurrently answered the Complaint. See ECF No. 2. 11 On January 22, 2021, the Parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendant BAE Systems, 12 Inc., without prejudice, see ECF No. 18, which motion was granted, see ECF No. 19. On 13 June 10, 2021, remaining named Defendant BAE Systems Technology & Services, Inc. 14 (“BAE” or “Defendant”) and Plaintiff attended a full-day mediation with mediator Gig 15 Kyriacou during which they reached a settlement on a class basis. ECF No. 27-1 (“Prelim. 16 Approval Mot. Mem.”) at 2.1 On June 14, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report and 17 Notice of Class Settlement. See ECF No. 20. The Parties subsequently filed a Joint Motion 18 for an Order Allowing Plaintiff to File First Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 24, which 19 motion also was granted, see ECF No. 25. Accordingly, on June 26, 2021, Cordova filed 20 her First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 26), which, among other changes, added 21 claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 22 et seq. (“PAGA”). The instant Motion followed. 23 Defendant employs forensic analysts in California, including Plaintiff. FAC ¶¶ 4– 24 5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misclassified forensic analyst employees as exempt and [25] 26 1 On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata noting that the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support of her Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval bore an erroneous title, see ECF No. [27] 28 (“Notice”), and requesting that Exhibit 1 attached to the Notice “replace Docket No. 27-1,” see id. at 28 1. The Court notes that the two Memoranda are substantively identical and thus, for simplicity, the Court 1 alleges fifteen causes of action as a result under various provisions of California and federal 2 law: 3 1. Failure to provide meal periods, violating California Labor Code § 512 4 (FAC ¶¶ 31–35); 5 2. Failure to provide rest periods every four hours, violating California Labor Code 6 § 226.7 (FAC ¶¶ 36–40); 7 3. Failure to pay overtime wages, violating California Labor Code § 1198 (FAC 8 ¶¶ 41–50); 9 4. Failure to pay overtime wages, violating the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. 10 (FAC ¶¶ 51–56); 11 5. Failure to provide compliant itemized wage statements, violating California 12 Labor Code § 226(a) (FAC ¶¶ 57–63); 13 6. Failure to pay timely wages due, violating California Labor Code §§ 201–02 14 (FAC ¶¶ 64–67); 15 7. Failure to reimburse business expenses, violating California Labor Code 16 § 2802(a) (FAC ¶¶ 68–71); 17 8. Unfair competition violations of California Business & Professions Code 18 §§ 17200 et seq. (FAC ¶¶ 72–76); 19 9. Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a), brought under PAGA (FAC ¶¶ 77– 20 81); 21 10. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201–03, brought under PAGA (FAC 22 ¶¶ 82–86); 23 11. Violation of California Labor Code § 510, brought under PAGA (FAC ¶¶ 87– 24 89); 25 12. Violation of California Labor Code § 512, brought under PAGA (FAC ¶¶ 90– 26 93); 27 13. Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7, brought under PAGA (FAC ¶¶ 94– 28 98); 1 14. Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, brought under PAGA (FAC ¶¶ 99– 2 104); and 3 15. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 558 and 1198, brought under PAGA 4 (FAC ¶¶ 105–09). 5 On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of 6 Class Action Settlement (“Prelim. Approval Mot.,” ECF No. 27.) On February 1, 2022, 7 the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion. See generally ECF No. 30 8 (“Prelim. Approval Order”). The Parties are now before the Court to seek the Court’s final 9 approval of their Settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs. See generally ECF Nos. 31 & 10 32. 11 SETTLEMENT TERMS 12 The Parties have submitted a comprehensive Stipulation of Settlement and Release 13 containing more than fifteen pages of substantive terms, see Decl. of London D. Meservy 14 in Support of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval (“Prelim. Approval 15 Meservy Decl.,” ECF No. 27-2) Ex. 1 (“Proposed Settlement Agreement”), as well as a 16 Notice of Class, Collective, and Representative Action Settlement, see Prelim. Approval 17 Meservy Decl. Ex. 2 (“Proposed Notice”). 18 I. Proposed Settlement Class 19 The Settlement Class includes “[a]ny and all persons who are or were employed by 20 Defendants2 as Forensic Analysts (of any level and all similar positions however titled), in 21 the State of California during the Covered Period.” Prelim. Approval Mot. Mem. at 3 22 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1(A)–(B), 5). There are thirty-one Class 23 Members. Id. (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 1(A)). 24 / / / 25 / / / [26] 27 2 The Court notes that although BAE Systems, Inc., was dismissed as a defendant from this action, the 28 Proposed Settlement Agreement, although only executed by Plaintiff and Defendant, repeatedly references 1 II. Proposed Monetary Relief 2 The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a $995,000.00 Maximum 3 Settlement Amount used to pay: (1) Plaintiff’s Class Representative’s Payment, not to 4 exceed $10,000.00; (2) Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee award, not to exceed thirty percent 5 of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $298,500.00; (3) up to $15,000.00 in Class 6 Counsel costs; (4) a $30,000.00 PAGA award, with $22,500.00 going to the California 7 Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”) and $7,500.00 going to the 8 Class Members; and (5) Settlement Administration Costs, estimated not to exceed 9 $3,500.00. Prelim. Approval Mot. Mem. at 3–4 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement 10 ¶ 5(C)). The remaining Net Settlement Amount of at least $645,000.00 shall be distributed 11 to the Settlement Class Members. Id. at 4. The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides 12 that Phoenix Settlement Administrators shall serve as Settlement Administrator. Id. (citing 13 Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 5(A)). 14 Each Class Member will receive a portion of the Net Settlement “determined based 15 on their proportionate number of Work Weeks during the Covered Period (i.e., from 16 November 12, 2016 through July 30, 2021).” Id. (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement 17 ¶ 9(B)). The Settlement Administrator will calculate the amount “for each Settlement Class 18 Member by multiplying the Net Settlement Amount by a fraction, the numerator of which 19 is the Settlement Class Member’s individual total Work Weeks during the Covered Period, 20 and the denominator of which is the total number of Work Weeks of all Settlement Class 21 Members during the Covered Period.” Id. Consequently, although payments will vary, if 22 all thirty-one Settlement Class Members participate, the average settlement amount “is 23 estimated to be $20,822.00.” Id. 24 In exchange, the Class Members will release their claims for: 25 any and all wage-and-hour claims, statutory, constitutional, contractual or common law claims for wages, damages, unpaid [26] costs, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, 27 attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief, for the following categories of allegations: (a) all claims for failure [28] 1 to provide required meal periods; (b) failure to provide required rest periods; (c) failure to pay overtime wages or minimum wage; [2] (d) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting 3 employees; (f) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (h) failure to indemnify employees for necessary [4] business expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; (i) unfair 5 and unlawful business practices based on the foregoing allegations[;] and (j) any other related civil and statutory [6] penalties, including those recoverable under PAGA (“Class 7 Members’ Released Claims”). The Class Members’ Released Claims include claims meeting the above definition(s) including [8] those under California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, 9 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1198, and 2802; California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; PAGA, California Labor Code §§ [10] 2698 et. seq.; California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; 11 California Civil Code §§ 3287 and 3288; California Industrial Wage Order Nos. 1 through 9, and the overtime and minimum [12] wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 13 §201, et seq. arising during the Covered Period. 14 Id. at 5 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 2). None of the Maximum Settlement 15 Amount will revert to Defendants. See Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 2. If any 16 settlement checks remain uncashed 120 days after issuance, the amount will be paid to the 17 California State Controller Unclaimed Property Fund. See Prelim. Approval Mot. Mem. 18 at 5 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 9(k)). 19 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 20 I. Class Certification 21 Before granting final approval of a class action settlement agreement, the Court must 22 first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, [23] 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (indicating that a district court must apply “undiluted, even 24 heightened, attention [to class certification] in the settlement context” in order to protect 25 absentees). In the present case, the Court already has certified the Settlement Class. See 26 Prelim. Approval Order at 6–12. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. Adequacy of Notice 2 The Court must also determine that the Class Members received adequate notice. 3 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds 4 by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). “Adequate notice is critical to 5 court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).” Id. 6 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the Parties’ 7 Proposed Notice and proposed notification plan. See Prelim. Approval Order at 18–19. In 8 support of her Final Approval Motion, Plaintiff has filed the Declaration of Kevin Lee, 9 who is employed as “a Case Manager at Phoenix Settlement Administrators (‘Phoenix’), 10 the Court-appointed Class Action Settlement Administrator for Cordova v. Bae Systems, 11 Inc., et al. (the ‘Class Action’).” See generally Lee Decl.; see also id. ¶ 1. In his 12 declaration, Mr. Lee details the actions taken by Phoenix to provide notice in accordance 13 with the notification plan. See generally id. Having reviewed Mr. Lee’s declaration, the 14 Court finds that the Settlement Class Members received adequate notice of the Settlement. 15 III. Fairness of the Settlement 16 The Court must next determine whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). Under amendments 18 to Rule 23(e) effective December 1, 2018, district courts must consider the following 19 factors in making this assessment: 20 (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; [21] 22 (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; [23] (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into 24 account: [25] (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; [26] (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of [27] distributing relief to the class, including the method of 28 processing class-member claims; 1 (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; and [2] 3 (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and [4] 5 (D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. [6] 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Before the revisions to Rule 23(e), the Ninth Circuit had 8 developed its own list of factors to be considered. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset 9 Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. 10 Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 , 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). The revised factors were not intended “to 11 displace any factor [developed under existing Ninth Circuit precedent], but rather to focus 12 the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that should guide 13 the decision whether to approve the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory 14 committee’s note to 2018 amendment. Accordingly, other factors relevant to this 15 determination include: 16 The strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining [17] class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in 18 settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence [19] of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class 20 members to the proposed settlement. 21 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 . This determination is committed to the sound discretion of the 22 trial judge. Id. 23 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court addressed each of the Hanlon factors 24 in turn and found that all the pertinent factors weighed in favor of approving the Settlement. 25 See Prelim. Approval Order at 12–18. Since then, no Class Member has filed an objection 26 or requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. See Lee Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. Because no 27 pertinent facts have changed, the Court reaffirms and incorporates by reference its analysis 28 of the Rule 23(e) requirements as set forth in its Preliminary Approval Order. See Prelim. 1 Approval Order at 12–18. Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement to be “fair, 2 reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). 3 IV. Conclusion 4 Because all the pertinent factors here weigh in favor of approving the Settlement, 5 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion. 6 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 7 Class Counsel seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $298,500.00, representing thirty 8 percent of the Maximum Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of litigation costs in the 9 amount of $9,085.11. ECF No. 32-1 (“Final Approval Mot. Mem.”) at 1, 10–11. Class 10 Counsel also request a Class Representative’s Payment in the amount of $10,000.00 for 11 Plaintiff, see id. at 12–14, and Settlement administration expenses to Phoenix in the amount 12 of $3,500.00, see id. at 14. Finally, Class Counsel requests approval of a PAGA payment 13 of $30,000.00. See id. at 10. The Court addresses each of Class Counsel’s requests in turn. 14 I. Attorneys’ Fees 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) permits a court to award reasonable attorneys’ 16 fees “authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” The Court has discretion to award 17 attorneys’ fees based on “the percentage-of-the-fund method or the lodestar/multiplier 18 approach.” In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 , 1295–96 (9th 19 Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit has routinely applied the percentage-of-the-fund approach, 20 treating twenty-five percent as the “benchmark.” In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 21 373 , 378–79 (9th Cir. 1994). Despite this benchmark, district courts have discretion to 22 “[a]djust the benchmark when special circumstances indicate a higher or lower percentage 23 would be appropriate.” Id. at 379. 24 Here, Class Counsel seek thirty percent of the $995,000.00 Maximum Settlement 25 Amount, totaling $298,500.00, see ECF No. 31-1 (“Fee Mot. Mem.”) at 1, which exceeds 26 the Ninth Circuit’s twenty-five percent benchmark. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the 27 Court indicated that, “[a]t th[at] point, without Class Counsel’s briefing, the Court 28 f[ou]nd[] no reason to award fees that exceed the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark,” and 1 that “Class Counsel w[ould] need to show what special circumstances exist warranting a 2 higher percentage in their motion for attorneys’ fees.” Prelim. Approval Order at 16. 3 In their Fee Motion, Class Counsel contend that the requested fees of $298,500.00 4 are reasonable under either the percentage-of-the-fund or lodestar approach to calculating 5 a reasonable fee. See Fee Mot. Mem. at 4–12. Specifically, Class Counsel contend that a 6 departure from the twenty-five percent benchmark under the percentage-of-the-fund 7 approach is warranted given the “exceptional result” obtained for the class, see id. at 6; the 8 “substantial risks both on certification and liability,” see id.; the “required extensive 9 substantive knowledge of California and federal wage and hour legislation, administrative 10 authority, and existing and developing case law,” id. at 7; the “significant expenditure of 11 Class Counsel’s time,” see id.; the “significant financial risk” involved due to the 12 contingent nature of the case, see id. at 8; and the fact that a fee award of thirty percent of 13 the recovery “is directly in line with Ninth Circuit precedent for common fund cases,” see 14 id. at 8–9 (citations omitted). As for the lodestar method, Class Counsel have worked 352.9 15 hours on this matter, see id. at 10, with hourly rates of $675.00 per hour for Messrs. 16 Meservy and Dente and $575.00 for Mr. Pendergast, see id. at 11. Class Counsel contend 17 that the base lodestar of $227,297.50 is justified “[g]iven the complexities of this Lawsuit, 18 vigorous defense, and the work required to achieve a fair, reasonable and adequate 19 Settlement.” Id. at 10. A multiplier of 1.31 yields the requested fee of $298,500.00, see 20 id., which Class Counsel contend is reasonable for the reasons noted supra, see id. at 10– 21 11. 22 Having reviewed the Fee Motion; the Declarations of London D. Meservy 23 (“Meservy Decl.,” ECF No. 31-2), Matthew S. Dente (“Dente Decl.,” ECF No. 31-3), and 24 Rory K. Pendergast (ECF No. 31-4) in Support of Plaintiff’s Fee Motion; and the 25 applicable law, and given the lack of objection from Defendant or any Settlement Class 26 Member, the Court agrees that the fee request in the amount of $298,500.00, or thirty 27 percent of the Maximum Settlement Amount, is reasonable under the circumstances, 28 particularly in light of the favorable results achieved by Class Counsel, the risk Class 1 Counsel assumed by taking this case on contingency, and the award being in line with fee 2 awards in similar actions. Accordingly, the Court finds that an award of $298,500.00 is 3 reasonable under the circumstances of this case. 4 II. Costs 5 Although the Proposed Settlement Agreement authorizes Class Counsel to apply for 6 reimbursement of up to $15,000.00 in costs, see Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 5(C), 7 Class Counsel seek reimbursement for only $9,085.11, see Fee Mot. Mem. at 12; Final 8 Approval Mot. Mem. at 1. The requested costs include copying, postage, mediation fees, 9 and filing fees. See Meservy Decl. ¶ 29; Dente Decl. ¶ 11. No objections have been made 10 to these costs, and the Court finds that Class Counsel’s litigation expenses are typical and 11 reasonable. The Court therefore approves the requested costs reimbursement in the amount 12 of $9,085.11. 13 III. Class Representative’s Payment 14 Incentive awards are “fairly typical” discretionary awards “intended to compensate 15 class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or 16 reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their 17 willingness to act as a private attorney general.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 18 948 , 958–59 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). In deciding whether to give an incentive 19 award, the Court may consider: 20 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties 21 encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the [22] litigation; and 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed 23 by the class representative as a result of the litigation. 24 Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citations 25 omitted). 26 Class Counsel seek a $10,000.00 Class Representative’s Payment for named 27 Plaintiff Aimee Cordova. Final Approval Mot. Mem. at 12–14. In its Preliminary 28 Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed incentive award but 1 “request[ed] that Plaintiff provide documentation detailing the time and effort she has 2 expended in pursuit of this litigation and the actions she has taken to benefit the Settlement 3 Class.” Prelim. Approval Order at 17. 4 In their Final Approval Motion, Class Counsel contend that the requested incentive 5 award is reasonable given that Plaintiff “has been an extremely active and invaluable 6 participant in this Class Action,” including “participating in interviews and telephone 7 consultations,” “locating and gathering information and documents,” and “responding to 8 written inquiries,” see Final Approval Mot. Mem. at 12; “assumed the risk of a judgment 9 against her and personal liability for an award of costs,” id. at 13; and “enter[ed] into a 10 Complete and General Release that is much broader than the narrowly tailored Class 11 Member Released Claims,” id. No Class Member has objected to the requested incentive 12 award, which represents only 1.005% of the Maximum Settlement Amount. See id. (citing 13 Lee Decl. ¶ 9). Having considered the relevant factors, the Court finds the requested Class 14 Representative’s Payment of $10,000.00 to be reasonable. 15 IV. Settlement Administration Expenses 16 The Settlement further authorizes the deduction of up to $3,500.00 from the 17 Maximum Settlement Amount for the administration costs incurred by the Settlement 18 Administrator. Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 5(C). Class Counsel seek approval of 19 settlement administration expenses in the amount of $3,500.00 to the Settlement 20 Administrator, Phoenix, see Final Approval Mot. Mem. at 14 (citing Lee Decl. ¶ 16). No 21 objections have been made to these expenses, and the Court finds that the Settlement 22 Administrator’s expenses are reasonable. See Lee Decl. Ex. B. The Court therefore 23 approves the requested administration expenses in the amount of $3,500.00. 24 V. PAGA Award 25 Finally, the Settlement provides for a $30,000.00 PAGA award, with $22,500.00 26 going to the LWDA and $7,500.00 reverting to the Class Members. Proposed Settlement 27 Agreement ¶ 5(C). Plaintiff requests approval of the PAGA award. Final Approval Mot. 28 Mem. at 1. No objections have been made to the requested PAGA award, which the Court 1 finds reasonable. The Court therefore approves the requested PAGA award in the amount 2 of $30,000.00, which the Court finds to be “fair and adequate in view of the purposes and 3 policies of [PAGA].” Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 4 3d 1074, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting O’Connor v. Uber Techs., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110 , 5 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). 6 VI. Conclusion 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Fee Motion. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motions for 10 (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 32) and (2) Attorneys’ Fees and 11 Costs (ECF No. 31). Accordingly, the Court ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT as follows: 12 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement 13 Agreement and all terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set 14 forth in the Settlement Agreement. 15 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over 16 all Parties to this litigation, including the Plaintiff and Class Members. 17 3. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the appointed Settlement 18 Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, mailed the Class Notice Packet to all 19 Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail. The Class Notice Packet fairly and adequately 20 informed Class Members of the terms of the proposed Settlement and the benefits available 21 to Class Members thereunder. The Class Notice Packet further informed Class Members 22 of the pendency of the Class Action, of the proposed Settlement, of Class Members’ right 23 to receive their share of the Settlement, of the scope and effect of the Settlement’s Released 24 Claims, of the preliminary Court approval of the proposed Settlement, of exclusion and 25 objection timing and procedures, of the date of the Final Approval Hearing, and of the right 26 to file documentation in support of or in opposition to the Settlement and to appear in 27 connection with the Final Approval Hearing. Class Members had adequate time to 28 consider this information and to use the procedures identified in the Class Notice Packet. 1 The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate protections to 2 Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision 3 regarding approval of the Settlement based on the responses of Class Members. The Court 4 finds and determines that the Class Notice Packet provided in the Class Action was the best 5 notice practicable, which satisfied the requirements of law and due process. 6 4. In response to the Class Notice Packet, zero Class Members objected to the 7 Settlement and zero Class Members submitted a Request for Exclusion from the 8 Settlement. 9 5. The Court hereby finds that the Parties’ notice of the proposed Settlement 10 submitted to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) fully and 11 adequately complied with the notice requirements of the Private Attorneys General Act 12 (“PAGA”), California Labor Code § 2699(l). 13 6. The Court finds that the Settlement offers significant monetary recovery to all 14 Class Members and finds that such recovery is fair, adequate, and reasonable when 15 balanced against further litigation related to liability and damages issues. The Court further 16 finds that the Parties have conducted extensive and costly investigation, informal 17 discovery, research, and litigation such that Class Counsel and Defense Counsel are able 18 to reasonably evaluate their respective positions at this time. The Court finds that the 19 proposed Settlement, at this time, will avoid substantial additional costs by all Parties, as 20 well as avoid the risks and delay inherent to further prosecution of the Class Action. The 21 Court further finds that the Parties reached the Settlement as the result of intensive, serious, 22 and non-collusive arms-length negotiations. Thus, the Court APPROVES the Settlement 23 set forth in the Settlement Agreement; finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, 24 adequate, and reasonable; and directs the Parties to effectuate the Settlement according to 25 its terms. 26 7. The Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement Administrator to distribute the 27 Individual Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members in accordance with the 28 provisions of the Settlement. 1 8. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and for this Settlement only, the 2 Court hereby CERTIFIES the following class of Class Members: 3 Any and all persons who are or were employed by Defendants as Forensic Analysts (of any level and all similar positions however [4] titled), in the State of California during the Covered Period. [5] 6 The Covered Period is defined as November 12, 2016, through July 30, 2021. 7 9. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 8 APPROVES the settlement of claims under the PAGA and the payment of $22,500 to the 9 LWDA as the LWDA’s share of the Settlement attributable to civil penalties under the 10 PAGA. The Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement Administrator to distribute the 11 payment to the LWDA in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement. 12 10. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 13 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of Plaintiff Aimee Cordova as the class 14 representative for the Class Members. Further, the Court FINALLY APPROVES the 15 Class Representative’s Payment to Plaintiff of $10,000.00 as fair and reasonable. The 16 Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement Administrator to distribute the Class 17 Representative’s Payment to the Plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the 18 Settlement. 19 11. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 20 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of London D. Meservy, Meservy Law, P.C., 21 london@meservylawpc.com, 401 West A Street, Suite 1712, San Diego, California 92101, 22 Telephone: 858.779.1276; Matthew S. Dente, Dente Law, P.C., matt@dentelaw.com, 5040 23 Shoreham Place, San Diego, California 92122, Telephone: 619.550.3475; and Rory K. 24 Pendergast, The Pendergast Law Firm, PC, rory@rorylaw.com, 3019 Polk Avenue, San 25 Diego, California 92104, Telephone: 619.344.8699; as Class Counsel for the Class 26 Members. Further, the Court FINALLY APPROVES a Class Counsel’s Fees Award of 27 $298,500.00 as fair and reasonable. As well, the Court FINALLY APPROVES a Class 28 Counsel Costs Award of $9,085.11 as fair and reasonable. Class Counsel’s receipt of the 1 Class Counsel Fees Award and Class Counsel Costs Award shall fully satisfy all fees and 2 litigation costs incurred by Class Counsel that represented Plaintiff and Class Members in 3 the Class Action. Defendants’ payment of the Court-awarded attorneys’ fees and costs 4 shall constitute full satisfaction of Defendants’ obligation to pay any person, attorney, or 5 law firm for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred on behalf of the Plaintiff and the 6 Class Members in the Class Action. The Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement 7 Administrator to distribute the Class Counsel Fees Award and Class Counsel Costs Award 8 payments to Class Counsel in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement. 9 12. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 10 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the 11 Settlement Administrator to administer the Settlement of this matter as more specifically 12 set forth in the Settlement Agreement and further FINALLY APPROVES Settlement 13 Administration Costs of $3,500.00 as fair and reasonable. 14 13. As of the Effective Date, all Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to 15 have released the Released Parties from all Class Members’ Released Claims, as defined 16 in the Settlement Agreement. All Settlement Class Members, as of the Effective Date, are 17 hereby forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the Class Members’ Released Claims 18 against the Released Parties. 19 14. Neither this Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any 20 document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement 21 is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission by or against Defendants or any 22 of the other Released Parties of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. Nor is this 23 Final Approval Order a finding of the validity of any claims in the Class Action or of any 24 wrongdoing by Defendants or any of the other Released Parties. The entering into or 25 carrying out of the Settlement Agreement, and any negotiations or proceedings related 26 thereto, shall not in any event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission 27 or concession with regard to the denials or defenses by Defendants or any of the other 28 Released Parties and shall not be offered in evidence against Defendants or any of the 1 || Released Parties in any action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other 2 tribunal for any purpose whatsoever other than to enforce the provisions of this Final 3 ||Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, or any related agreement or release. 4 || Notwithstanding these restrictions, any of the Released Parties may file in the Class Action 5 in any other proceeding this Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, or any 6 other papers and records on file in the Class Action as evidence of the Settlement and to 7 ||support a defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, waiver, or other theory of 8 claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or similar defense. 9 15. Ifthe Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with the 10 |/terms of the Settlement Agreement, resulting in the return and/or retention of the 11 ||Settlement funds to Defendants consistent with the terms of the Settlement, then this Final 12 ||Approval Order and all orders entered in connection herewith, including, without 13 |/limitation, any order certifying the class of Class Members or appointing class 14 representatives or Class Counsel, shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated. 15 16. Pursuant to the Parties’ Settlkement Agreement, the Class Action is 16 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for the reasons set forth above, and in accordance 17 || with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 18 17. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and Dismissal of 19 |/the Class Action with Prejudice in any way, this Court hereby RETAINS continuing 20 || jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement and 21 orders and judgments entered in connection therewith. 22 18. As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL 23 CLOSE the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: May 27, 2022 jae L. Lo memeaite6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 54 United States District Judge