Preston v. Porch.com, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ADRIANA PRESTON, Individually and Case No.: 21-CV-168 JLS (BLM) on Behalf of All Others Similarly [12] Situated, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED Plaintiff, MOTIONS FOR (A) FINAL [14] v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 15 SETTLEMENT AND PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware (B) ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, 16 Corporation; HIRE A HELPER LLC, SERVICE AWARD, AND a California Limited Liability Company; 17 SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION KERI MILLER, an individual; and EXPENSES; AND (2) ENTERING 18 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, JUDGMENT 19 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 36, 38) [21] 22 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Adriana Preston’s unopposed Motions for 23 (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Final Approval Mot.,” ECF No. 36) and 24 (2) Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Service Award, and Settlement Administrator Expenses (“Fee 25 Mot.,” ECF No. 38). Also before the Court is the Declaration of Jarrod Salinas (“Salinas 26 Decl.,” ECF No. 37) on behalf of the Settlement Administrator. The Court held a hearing 27 on August 11, 2022. See ECF No. 39. Because the Settlement is fundamentally fair, 28 reasonable, and adequate, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Final Approval 1 Motion. Further, because the requested attorneys’ fees, costs, service award, and 2 Settlement Administrator expenses are reasonable, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Fee 3 Motion. 4 GENERAL BACKGROUND 5 On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint in the San Diego 6 County Superior Court on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees who 7 worked for Defendants Porch.com; Hire A Helper, LLC; Elite Insurance Group, Inc.; 8 Kandela, LLC; and Serviz, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)1 from November 23, 2016, 9 through the present. See ECF No. 1. On January 28, 2021, Defendants timely removed to 10 this Court. Id. 11 In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed November 29, 2021, Plaintiff 12 alleges, on behalf of the class, that Defendants: (1) failed to pay all compensation owed at 13 separation; (2) failed to pay all wages earned; (3) failed to provide accurate itemized wage 14 statements; (4) failed to compensate for missed, late, or on duty meal periods; (5) failed to 15 compensate for missed, late, or on duty rest periods; (6) failed to pay vacation wages at 16 termination; (7) engaged in unlawful overtime policies and procedures; (8) failed to 17 provide timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods; (9) failed to maintain accurate time 18 records; (10) failed to pay overtime compensation; (11) failed to reimburse business 19 expenses; and (12) violated the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), 20 California Labor Code § 2968 et seq. See generally ECF No. 32 (“FAC”). On January 28, 21 2021, Defendants filed an answer denying liability and asserting twenty affirmative 22 defenses. ECF No. 4. 23 On July 28, 2021, the Parties participated in a private mediation and reached a 24 tentative agreement to settle this action, subject to finalizing a comprehensive settlement 25 agreement. The Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release [28] 1 The latter three named Defendants were substituted in place of Doe Defendants 1 through 3 via the First 1 (“Settlement”) was thereafter finalized and executed in November 2021. On November 2 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed her unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 3 Settlement (“Prelim. Approval Mot.,” ECF No. 30). On April 25, 2022, the Court granted 4 Plaintiff’s Preliminary Approval Motion. See generally ECF No. 35 (“Prelim. Approval 5 Order”). The Parties are now before the Court to seek the Court’s final approval of their 6 Settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs. See generally ECF Nos. 36, 38. 7 SETTLEMENT TERMS 8 The Parties have submitted a comprehensive Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA 9 Settlement and Release containing more than twenty-two pages of substantive terms, see 10 Decl. of David C. Hawkes in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 11 Settlement (“Final Approval Hawkes Decl.,” ECF No. 36-2) Ex. A (“Proposed Settlement 12 Agreement”), as well as a Notice of Proposed Class Action and Private Attorneys General 13 Act Settlement, see Final Approval Hawkes Decl. Ex. 1 (“Proposed Notice”). 14 I. Proposed Settlement Class 15 The Settlement Class includes “[a]ll current and former non-exempt California 16 employees of the Defendants or their present and former parents, subsidiaries, successors 17 or assigns, including without limitation Kandela, LLC, Serviz.com, Inc., and Elite 18 Insurance Group, Inc.” ECF No. 36-1 (“Final Approval Mot. Mem.”) at 6 (citing Prelim. 19 Approval Order at 15). The Class Period runs from November 23, 2016, to April 25, 2022, 20 the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Id. Additionally, the PAGA Period 21 runs from November 23, 2019 to April 25, 2022. Id. (citing Proposed Settlement 22 Agreement ¶¶ 6–9). There are 228 Class Members. Id. at 9 (citing Salinas Decl. ¶ 3). 23 II. Proposed Monetary Relief 24 The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a $500,000 Maximum Settlement 25 Amount used to pay: (1) Plaintiff’s Class Representative’s Payment, not to exceed 26 $10,000.00; (2) Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee award, not to exceed one-third of the 27 Maximum Settlement Amount, or $166,666.67; (3) up to $20,000.00 in Class Counsel 28 costs; (4) a $20,000.00 PAGA award, with $15,000.00 going to the California Labor and 1 Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”) and $5,000.00 going to the Class 2 Members; and (5) Settlement Administration Costs, estimated not to exceed $6,000.00. 3 Final Approval Mot. Mem. at 8–10 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 15, 16, 19). 4 The remaining Net Settlement Amount of at least $282,333.00 shall be distributed to the 5 Settlement Class Members. Id. at 10 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 16(c)(i)). 6 The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides that Phoenix Settlement Administrators 7 shall serve as Settlement Administrator. Id. 7 (citing Final Approval Hawkes Decl. ¶ 31). 8 Each Class Member will receive a portion of the Net Settlement “determined based 9 on the number of weeks worked by all Class Members during the Class Period [November 10 23, 2016, to April 25, 2022] based on information provided by Defendant.” Proposed 11 Settlement Agreement ¶ 16(c)(i). Consequently, although payments will vary, if all 228 12 Settlement Class Members participate, the average settlement amount is “approximately 13 $1,128 each, with the highest individual payout exceeding $7,200.” Final Approval Mot. 14 Mem. at 1. 15 In exchange, the Class Members will release their claims for: 16 any and all claims, rights, demands, liabilities and causes of action of any nature or description, including any such claims, [17] whether known or unknown, that were litigated in the Action 18 against Defendants or could have been litigated based on the facts and circumstances alleged in the entire Action against [19] Defendants, arising under the Complaint and First Amended 20 Complaint filed in the Southern District of California District Court including, but not limited to, all claims under the [21] California Labor Code, Wage Orders and related orders of the 22 California Industrial Welfare Commission and Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq (the “Released Claims”) [23] alleged in the Action or which could have been alleged based on 24 the facts alleged in the Action. The claims released under this paragraph shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, claims [25] for: meal period violations and failure to pay compensation in 26 lieu thereof; rest break violations and failure to pay compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay minimum wages, [27] regular wages, overtime and double time wages; all theories 28 related to unpaid wages (including but not limited to off-the1 cthlorocukg wh omrke,a tli mpeer isohdasv, inregg, utliamr er aroteu ncdlaiinmg,s ,o onn-c-adlul ttyi mmee, awl oprekriinogd [2] violations, or any other claims giving rise to minimum and/or 3 overtime violations); unpaid meal period penalties; unpaid rest period penalties; wage statement violations; failure to reimburse [4] business expenses; failure to pay wages upon separation from 5 employment; waiting time penalties; any penalties or wages owed, derivative violations of the Unfair Competition Law, [6] derivative California Private Attorneys General Act, the Labor 7 Code, Labor Code section 2699, et seq., as well as any damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, statutory penalties, [8] taxes, interest or attorneys’ fees or costs resulting therefrom. [9] 10 Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 24. None of the Maximum Settlement Amount will 11 revert to Defendants. See id. ¶ 16(c). If any settlement checks remain uncashed 180 days 12 after issuance, the amount will be transmitted to the International Justice Mission as the cy 13 pres recipient. Final Approval Mot. Mem. at 9 (citing Proposed Settlement Agreement 14 ¶ 21). 15 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 16 I. Class Certification 17 Before granting final approval of a class action settlement agreement, the Court must 18 first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, [19] 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (indicating that a district court must apply “undiluted, even 20 heightened, attention [to class certification] in the settlement context” in order to protect 21 absentees). In the present case, the Court already has certified the Settlement Class. See 22 Prelim. Approval Order at 4–10. 23 II. Adequacy of Notice 24 The Court must also determine that the Class Members received adequate notice. 25 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds 26 by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). “Adequate notice is critical to 27 court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).” Id. 28 /// 1 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the Parties’ 2 Proposed Notice and proposed notification plan. See Prelim. Approval Order at 13–14. In 3 support of her Final Approval Motion, Plaintiff has filed the Declaration of Jarrod Salinas, 4 who is employed as “a Case Manager at Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions 5 (‘PSA’), the claims administrator in [this] action.” See generally Salinas Decl.; see also 6 id. ¶ 1. In his declaration, Mr. Salinas details the actions taken by PSA to provide notice 7 in accordance with the notification plan. See generally id. Having reviewed Mr. Salinas’s 8 declaration, the Court finds that the Settlement Class Members received adequate notice of 9 the Settlement. 10 III. Fairness of the Settlement 11 The Court must next determine whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, 12 and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). Under amendments 13 to Rule 23(e), effective December 1, 2018, district courts must consider the following 14 factors to determine whether the proposal is “fair, reasonable, and adequate”: 15 (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; [16] 17 (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; [18] (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into 19 account: [20] (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; [21] (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of [22] distributing relief to the class, including the method of 23 processing class-member claims; [24] (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, 25 including timing of payment; and [26] (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 27 23(e)(3); and 28 /// 1 (oDth)e trh. e proposal treats class members equitably relative to each [2] 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Before the revisions to Rule 23(e), the Ninth Circuit had 4 developed its own list of factors to be considered. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset 5 Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. 6 Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 , 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). The revised factors were not intended “to 7 displace any factor [developed under existing Ninth Circuit precedent], but rather to focus 8 the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that should guide 9 the decision whether to approve the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory 10 committee’s note to 2018 amendment. Accordingly, other factors relevant to this 11 determination include: 12 The strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining [13] class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in 14 settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence [15] of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class 16 members to the proposed settlement. 17 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 . Furthermore, “settlement approval that takes place prior to 18 formal class certification requires a higher standard of fairness.” Id. This determination is 19 committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id. 20 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court found that the pertinent factors weighed 21 in favor of approving the Settlement. See Prelim. Approval Order at 11–13. Since then, 22 no Class Member has filed an objection or requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. 23 See Salinas Decl. ¶ 9. Because no pertinent facts have changed, the Court reaffirms and 24 incorporates by reference its analysis of the Rule 23(e)(2) requirements as set forth in its 25 Preliminary Approval Order. See Prelim. Approval Order at 11–13. Accordingly, the 26 Court finds the settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule 27 of Civil Procedure 23(e). 28 /// 1 IV. Conclusion 2 Because all the pertinent factors here weigh in favor of approving the Settlement, 3 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion. 4 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 5 Class Counsel seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $166,666.67, representing one6 third of the Maximum Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of litigation costs in the 7 amount of $8,140.11. ECF No. 38-1 (“Fee Mot. Mem.”) at 1. Class Counsel also request 8 a Class Representative’s Payment in the amount of $10,000.00 for Plaintiff, see id. at 13– 9 15, and Settlement administration expenses to PSA in the amount of $6,000.00, see id. at 10 14. Finally, Class Counsel requests approval of a PAGA payment of $20,000.00. See id. 11 at 10. The Court addresses each of Class Counsel’s requests in turn. 12 I. Attorneys’ Fees 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) permits a court to award reasonable attorneys’ 14 fees “authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” The Court has discretion to award 15 attorneys’ fees based on “the percentage-of-the-fund method or the lodestar/multiplier 16 approach.” In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 , 1295–96 (9th 17 Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit has routinely applied the percentage-of-the-fund approach, 18 treating twenty-five percent as the “benchmark.” In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 19 373 , 378–79 (9th Cir. 1994). Despite this benchmark, district courts have discretion to 20 “[a]djust the benchmark when special circumstances indicate a higher or lower percentage 21 would be appropriate.” Id. at 379. 22 Here, Class Counsel seek one-third of the $500,000.00 Maximum Settlement 23 Amount, totaling $166,666.67, see ECF No. 38-1 (“Fee Mot. Mem.”) at 1, which exceeds 24 the Ninth Circuit’s twenty-five percent benchmark. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the 25 Court indicated that Class Counsel would need to show “why any upward or downward 26 departure from the 25% benchmark may be merited.” Prelim. Approval Order at 17. 27 In their Fee Motion, Class Counsel contend that the requested fees of $166,666.67 28 are reasonable under either the percentage-of-the-fund or lodestar approach to calculating 1 a reasonable fee. See Fee Mot. Mem. at 4–12. Specifically, Class Counsel contend that a 2 departure from the twenty-five percent benchmark under the percentage-of-the-fund 3 approach is warranted given the “substantial benefit” obtained for the class, which amounts 4 to “recovery of approximately 74% of the maximum projected exposure,” see id. at 10; the 5 “significant level of skill and extensive work” of Class Counsel “required to negotiate a 6 settlement extremely favorable to the class,” id. at 11; the “substantial time and costs” Class 7 Counsel invested in this matter, see id.; the contingent nature of the case, see id.; and the 8 fact that a fee award of thirty-three percent of the recovery “is in line with fee awards in 9 similar actions . . . where, as here, the common fund is below $10 million,” see id. (citations 10 omitted). As for the lodestar method, Class Counsel have worked 455.6 hours on this 11 matter, see id. at 3, with hourly rates of $550.00 per hour for Mr. Hawkes, $650.00 for Mr. 12 Huch, and $450.00 for Mr. Matcha, see id. at 5. Class Counsel contend that the base 13 lodestar of $251,400.00 is justified given “the quality of representation, the benefit 14 obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of 15 nonpayment.” Id. at 3 (quoting In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 , 16 942 (9th Cir. 2011)). Class Counsel contends that there is no need for a multiplier because 17 Class Counsel’s “current lodestar exceeds the requested fee Award[.]” Id. at 8. 18 Having reviewed the Fee Motion; the Declarations of David C. Hawkes (“Hawkes 19 Decl.,” ECF No. 38-2), David A. Huch (“Huch Decl.,” ECF No. 38-3), and Stephen Matcha 20 (ECF No. 38-4) in Support of Plaintiff’s Fee Motion; and the applicable law, and given the 21 lack of objection from any Defendant or Settlement Class Member, the Court agrees that 22 the fee request in the amount of $166,666.67, or thirty-three percent of the Maximum 23 Settlement Amount, is reasonable under the circumstances, particularly in light of the 24 favorable results achieved by Class Counsel, the risk Class Counsel assumed by taking this 25 case on contingency, and the award being in line with fee awards in similar actions. 26 Accordingly, the Court finds that an award of $166,666.67 is reasonable under the 27 circumstances of this case. 28 /// 1 A. Costs 2 Although the Proposed Settlement Agreement authorizes Class Counsel to apply for 3 reimbursement of up to $20,000.00 in costs, see Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 19, 4 Class Counsel seek reimbursement for only $8,140.11, see Fee Mot. Mem. at 12. The 5 requested costs include filing fees, service of process fees, and mediation fees. See Hawkes 6 Decl. ¶ 8. No objections have been made to these costs, and the Court finds that Class 7 Counsel’s litigation expenses are typical and reasonable. The Court therefore approves the 8 requested costs reimbursement in the amount of $8,140.11. 9 B. Class Representative’s Payment 10 Incentive awards are “fairly typical” discretionary awards “intended to compensate 11 class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or 12 reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their 13 willingness to act as a private attorney general.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 14 948 , 958–59 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). In deciding whether to give an incentive 15 award, the Court may consider: 16 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties [17] encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time 18 and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the litigation; and 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed [19] by the class representative as a result of the litigation. [20] 21 Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citations 22 omitted). 23 Class Counsel seek a $10,000.00 Class Representative’s Payment for named 24 Plaintiff Ariana Preston. Fee Mot. Mem. at 13–15. In their Fee Motion, Class Counsel 25 contend that the requested incentive award is reasonable given “time and risks undertaken 26 by the named Plaintiff and the benefit she secured for the class.” Id. at 13. Ms. Preston 27 filed a declaration in support of her application for the service award, which details her 28 participation in this matter. See generally Declaration of Ariana Preston in Support of 1 Application for Service Award (“Preston Decl.,” ECF No. 38-5). Specifically, Ms. Preston 2 “spent at least forty-six and one-half (46.5) hours (and likely more) of [her] time 3 prosecuting this case over the past twenty months.” Id. ¶ 6. Ms. Preston “participated in 4 a multitude of meetings and conferences and email exchanges,” id. ¶ 7; “gathered all 5 documentation relating to the claims,” id. ¶ 8; “participat[ed] in informal and formal 6 discovery and initial disclosures[,] . . . an Early Neutral Evaluation[,] . . . [and] a full-day 7 mediation,” id. ¶¶ 9–11; “[c]ontacted and spoke with other class members and potential 8 witnesses,” id. ¶ 13; and “undertook a significant risk to [her]self and [her] career by suing 9 [her] former employer,” id. ¶ 17. 10 No Class Member has objected to the requested incentive award. See id. ¶ 19; see 11 also Salinas Decl. ¶ 9. Having considered the relevant factors, the Court finds the requested 12 Class Representative’s Payment of $10,000.00 to be reasonable. 13 II. Settlement Administration Expenses 14 The Settlement further authorizes the deduction of an estimated $6,000.00 from the 15 Maximum Settlement Amount for the administration costs incurred by the Settlement 16 Administrator. Proposed Settlement Agreement ¶ 16(c)(vii). Class Counsel seek approval 17 of settlement administration expenses in the amount of $6,000.00 to the Settlement 18 Administrator, PSA, see Fee Mot. Mem. at 15 (citing Salinas Decl. ¶ 12). No objections 19 have been made to these expenses, and the Court finds that the Settlement Administrator’s 20 expenses are reasonable. See generally Salinas Decl. The Court therefore approves the 21 requested administration expenses in the amount of $6,000.00. 22 III. PAGA Award 23 Finally, the Settlement provides for a $20,000.00 PAGA award, with $15,000.00 24 going to the LWDA and $5,000.00 reverting to the Class Members. Proposed Settlement 25 Agreement ¶ 16(c)(ii). Plaintiff requests approval of the PAGA award. Final Approval 26 Mot. Mem. at 8. No objections have been made to the requested PAGA award, which the 27 Court finds reasonable. The Court therefore approves the requested PAGA award in the 28 amount of $20,000.00, which the Court finds to be “fair and adequate in view of the 1 purposes and policies of [PAGA].” Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., [2] 253 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting O’Connor v. Uber Techs., 201 F. 3 Supp. 3d 1110, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). 4 IV. Conclusion 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Fee Motion. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motions for 8 (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 36) and (2) Attorneys’ Fees, 9 Costs, Service Award, and Settlement Administrator Expenses (ECF No. 38). 10 Accordingly, the Court ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT as follows: 11 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement 12 Agreement and all terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set 13 forth in the Settlement Agreement. 14 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over 15 all Parties to this litigation, including the Plaintiff and Class Members. 16 3. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the appointed Settlement 17 Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, mailed the Class Notice Packet to all 18 228 Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail. The Class Notice Packet fairly and 19 adequately informed Class Members of the terms of the proposed Settlement and the 20 benefits available to Class Members thereunder. The Class Notice Packet further informed 21 Class Members of the pendency of the Class Action, of the proposed Settlement, of Class 22 Members’ right to receive their share of the Settlement, of the scope and effect of the 23 Settlement’s Released Claims, of the preliminary Court approval of the proposed 24 Settlement, of exclusion and objection timing and procedures, of the date of the Final 25 Approval Hearing, and of the right to file documentation in support of or in opposition to 26 the Settlement and to appear in connection with the Final Approval Hearing. Class 27 Members had adequate time to consider this information and to use the procedures 28 identified in the Class Notice Packet. The Court finds and determines that this notice 1 procedure afforded adequate protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the 2 Court to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Settlement based on the 3 responses of Class Members. The Court finds and determines that the Class Notice Packet 4 provided in the Class Action was the best notice practicable, which satisfied the 5 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 All current and former non-exempt California employees of the Defendants or their present and former parents, subsidiaries, [4] successors or assigns, including without limitation Kandela, 5 LLC, Serviz.com, Inc., and Elite Insurance Group, Inc. 6 The Covered Period is defined as November 23, 2016, through April 25, 2022. 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 $15,000.00 to 9 the 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 of the State of California in accordance with the provisions of the 12 Settlement. 13 10. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 14 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of Plaintiff Adriana Preston as the class 15 representative for the Class Members. Further, the Court FINALLY APPROVES the 16 Class Representative’s Payment to Plaintiff of $10,000.00 as fair and reasonable. The 17 Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement Administrator to distribute the Class 18 Representative’s Payment to Plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement. 19 11. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 20 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of Blanchard, Krasner & French; the Law Office of 21 David A. Huch; and Matcha Law as Class Counsel for the Class Members. Further, the 22 Court FINALLY APPROVES a Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fee Award of $166,666.67 23 as fair and reasonable. As well, the Court FINALLY APPROVES a Class Counsel Costs 24 Award of $8,140.11 as fair and reasonable. Class Counsel’s receipt of the Class Counsel 25 Fees Award and Class Counsel Costs Award shall fully satisfy all fees and litigation costs 26 incurred by Class Counsel that represented Plaintiff and Class Members in the Class 27 Action. Defendants’ payment of the Court-awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall 28 constitute full satisfaction of Defendants’ obligation to pay any person, attorney, or law 1 firm for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class 2 Members in the Class Action. The Court hereby ORDERS the Settlement Administrator 3 to distribute the Class Counsel Fees Award and Class Counsel Costs Award payments to 4 Class Counsel in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement. 5 12. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and this Settlement only, the Court 6 hereby CONFIRMS the appointment of Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the 7 Settlement Administrator to administer the Settlement of this matter as more specifically 8 set forth in the Settlement Agreement and further FINALLY APPROVES Settlement 9 Administration Costs of $6,000.00 as fair and reasonable. 10 13. As of the Effective Date, all Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to 11 have released the Released Parties from all Class Members’ Released Claims, as defined 12 in the Settlement Agreement. All Settlement Class Members, as of the Effective Date, are 13 hereby forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the Class Members’ Released Claims 14 against the Released Parties. 15 14. Neither this Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any 16 document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement 17 is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission by or against Defendants or any 18 of the other Released Parties of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. Nor is this 19 Final Approval Order a finding of the validity of any claims in the Class Action or of any 20 wrongdoing by Defendants or any of the other Released Parties. The entering into or 21 carrying out of the Settlement Agreement, and any negotiations or proceedings related 22 thereto, shall not in any event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission 23 or concession with regard to the denials or defenses by Defendants or any of the other 24 Released Parties and shall not be offered in evidence against Defendants or any of the 25 Released Parties in any action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other 26 tribunal for any purpose whatsoever other than to enforce the provisions of this Final 27 Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, or any related agreement or release. 28 Notwithstanding these restrictions, any of the Released Parties may file in the Class Action 1 in any other proceeding this Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, or any 2 || other papers and records on file in the Class Action as evidence of the Settlement and to 3 ||support a defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, waiver, or other theory of 4 ||claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or similar defense. 5 15. If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with the 6 ||terms of the Settlement Agreement, resulting in the return and/or retention of the 7 || Settlement funds to Defendants consistent with the terms of the Settlement, then this Final 8 || Approval Order and all orders entered in connection herewith, including, without 9 ||limitation, any order certifying the class of Class Members or appointing class 10 representatives or Class Counsel, shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated. 11 16. Pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, the Class Action is 12 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for the reasons set forth above, and in accordance 13 || with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 14 17. Without affecting the finality of this matter, this Court RETAINS exclusive 15 || jurisdiction over this action and the Parties, including the class, for purposes of enforcing 16 terms and conditions of the Settlement. 17 18. As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL 18 || CLOSE the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: August 12, 2022 tt 21 pee Janis L. Sammartino 79 United States District Judge