Bailey v. Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMay 3, 2021
Docket2:17-cv-00685
StatusUnknown

This text of Bailey v. Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc. (Bailey v. Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bailey v. Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN BAILEY and JOSE No. 2:17-cv-00685-TLN-DMC CARRASCO JR., on behalf of themselves 12 and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, 13 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL Plaintiffs, OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, 14 MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ v. FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE 15 PAYMENT, AND JUDGMENT AND ROMANOFF FLOOR COVERING, INC., DISMISSAL 16 a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18

19 20 Plaintiffs Jonathan Bailey and Jose Carrasco Jr.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for 21 Final Approval of Class Settlement (“Motion for Final Approval”) and Motion for Award of 22 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Service Awards (“Fees Motion”) came on for hearing on April 15, 23 2021, at 1:30 p.m., before U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley.1 (ECF Nos. 18–19, 24.) Kyle 24 Nordrehaug, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and Sat Sang Khalsa appeared on behalf of 25 Defendant Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc. (“Defendant.”) 26 1 The parties initially appeared before the Court for hearing on January 21, 2021. No Class 27 Members appeared at that time. In order to ensure compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), the Court continued the hearing to April 15, 2021. 28 (ECF No. 21.) 1 The Parties submitted their Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement” 2 or “Settlement”), which this Court preliminarily approved in its July 16, 2020 Order (the 3 “Preliminary Approval Order”). (ECF No. 17.) In accordance with the Preliminary Approval 4 Order, Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the opportunity 5 to comment on or object to it or to exclude themselves from its provisions. (Id.; see also ECF No. 6 22.) 7 Having fully and carefully considered the Settlement Agreement, the Motion for Final 8 Approval and Fees Motion, the memoranda, evidence, and declarations filed in support thereof, 9 and the oral arguments made at the hearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED and DETERMINED that: 10 1. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in 11 the Settlement Agreement, a copy which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Norman 12 Blumenthal in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval. (ECF No. 19-2 at 52–107.) 13 2. The Court has jurisdiction over this Action and the Settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 14 1331. 15 3. Plaintiffs Jonathan Bailey and Jose Carrasco, Jr. are confirmed as Class 16 Representatives. 17 4. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, LLP, by and through Lead Counsel 18 Norman Blumenthal, Kyle Nordrehaug, and Aparajit Bhowmik are confirmed as Class Counsel. 19 5. CPT Group, Inc. is confirmed as Settlement Administrator. 20 6. Prior to granting preliminary approval, the Court evaluated the standards for class 21 certification. Nothing has been raised subsequently that might affect the Court’s prior analysis as 22 to whether certification is appropriate here, and the Court has no cause to revisit that analysis. 23 The Court finds that final certification of the Class is appropriate under Rule 23 and hereby 24 GRANTS, for settlement purposes only, certification of the Class consisting of the California 25 Class and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) Class, as defined herein: 26 The California Class is defined as all individuals who worked for Defendant in California as non-exempt employees from March 30, 27 2013 up to and through May 1, 2018 (the “California Class”) 28 The FCRA Class is defined as all prospective employees for whom 1 Defendant procured a background check during the time period of March 30, 2012 to April 5, 2017, which is comprised of FCRA Class 2 Members who received an FCRA form within the 2-year statutory period of FCRA and FCRA Class Members who received an FCRA 3 form within the 5-year statutory period of FCRA but outside of the 2-year statutory period of FCRA (the “FCRA Class”). 4 5 7. The Court reviewed the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing 6 Date for Final Court Approval (“Class Notice”) that was proposed when the Parties sought 7 preliminary approval of the Settlement and found it sufficient. (See ECF No. 17.) Pursuant to the 8 Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notice was sent to each Class Member by first-class mail. 9 The Class Notice informed Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their right to receive a 10 Settlement Share, their right to comment on or object to the Settlement and/or the attorneys’ fees 11 and costs, their right to elect not to participate in the Settlement and pursue their own remedies, 12 and their right to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing and be heard 13 regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods of time were provided by each of these 14 procedures. A website was created and maintained which provided Class Members the ability to 15 obtain additional information regarding the Settlement and to access pertinent pleadings. 16 8. This notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class Members and provides 17 the basis for the Court to make an informed decision regarding approval of the settlement based 18 on the responses of Class Members. The notice provided in this case was the best notice 19 practicable, which satisfied the requirements of law and due process. See Silber v. Mabon, 18 20 F.3d 1449, 1453–54 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 21 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); Winans v. Emeritus Corp., No. 13-cv-03962-HSG, 2016 WL 107574, at 22 *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016). 23 9. No Class Members filed written objections to the proposed Settlement as part of this 24 notice process. Five (5) Class Members requested exclusion: Cameron Kincaid, David Glazer, 25 Harrison Samitas, Julia Sluder, and Scott Madrid. (See ECF No. 19-5 at 4.) 26 10. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds and 27 determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and to 28 each Class Member. The Participating Class Members will be bound by the Settlement, the 1 Settlement and implementation schedule are deemed finally approved, and all terms and 2 provisions of the Settlement are hereby ORDERED to be consummated. 3 11. The all-inclusive Gross Settlement Amount in the maximum amount of $1,375,000 4 and the Settlement Shares to be paid to the Participating Class Members as provided for by the 5 Settlement are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby GRANTS final approval of and ORDERS 6 the payment of those amounts be distributed to the Participating Class Members out of the Net 7 Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the 8 Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator is directed to make the payments to each 9 Participating Class Member in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Further, the Court 10 approves the proposed means of disbursing any unclaimed funds as provided in the Settlement 11 Agreement. 12 12. The fees and expenses of CPT Group, Inc. in administrating the Settlement in the 13 amount of $28,000 are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby GRANTS final approval of and 14 ORDERS the payment of that amount be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance 15 with the Settlement Agreement. 16 13.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bailey v. Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-romanoff-floor-covering-inc-caed-2021.