Camilo v. Ozuna

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedOctober 21, 2019
Docket5:18-cv-02842
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Camilo v. Ozuna, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 RODRIGO CAMILO, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02842-VKD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 10 v. RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 11 SEVERO C. OZUNA, et al., SETTLEMENT 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 53

13 14 Plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose Lopez filed this 15 hybrid class action and collective action for alleged wage and hour violations under various 16 provisions of the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 17 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Defendants are Severo C. Ozuna and the Don Vito Ozuna Food Corporation. 18 On plaintiffs’ initial unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement (Dkt. No. 19 40), the Court conditionally certified a Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective action, 20 designated the named plaintiffs as class representatives, appointed plaintiffs’ counsel as class 21 counsel, and reserved judgment on plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, as 22 well as their request for service awards. Dkt. No. 52. The Court otherwise denied plaintiffs’ 23 motion for preliminary approval, without prejudice, and noted several items of particular concern. 24 Id. 25 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. 26 Dkt. No. 53. In addressing one of the Court’s noted concerns, plaintiffs have provided their 27 calculations underlying defendants’ total estimated exposure, if this case were to proceed to trial. 1 • Based on interviews of the plaintiffs, and review of defendants’ documents and 2 Department of Labor (“DOL”) records, plaintiffs’ counsel estimates that employees 3 worked, on average, 10 hours per day and some Saturdays—i.e., about 20 hours of 4 overtime per week.The average hourly income for each employee is $10/hour. 5 Because plaintiffs claim that defendants paid their overtime hours at a regular rate 6 of pay, plaintiffs contend that they were underpaid $5 for each hour of overtime 7 they worked. 8 • Employees worked a total of 6,825.29 workweeks (“California workweeks”) 9 • Employees worked a total of 5,661.57 workweeks during the FLSA class period 10 (“FLSA workweeks”) 11 • Plaintiffs carved out 1,934 workweeks from the California workweeks and the 12 FLSA workweeks to account for payments made by the DOL in a separate 13 proceeding. 14 Although plaintiffs provided one set of numbers to the Court (recited above), they 15 proceeded to use different, albeit somewhat similar numbers, in their actual calculations. 16 Nevertheless, using the numbers provided above and inserting those numbers into plaintiffs’ 17 proffered formulas, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ estimated damages are roughly accurate, and 18 slightly lower than the numbers provided in their renewed motion: 19 • Rule 23 overtime: 6825.29 California workweeks -1934 weeks x $5 per hour x 20 20 hours overtime per week = $489,129 21 • FLSA overtime: 5661.57 FLSA workweeks – 1934 weeks x $5 per hour x 20 22 hours overtime per week = $372,757 23 • Meal violations1: 6825.29 California workweeks x 5 days x $10 per day = 24 $341,264.50 25 • Rest violations: 6825.29 California workweeks x 5 days x $10 per day = 26

27 1 See Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; United Parcel Service Inc. v. Super. Ct., 196 Cal. App. 4th 57, 69 1 $341,264.50 2 • Waiting time penalties2: 107 former employees3 x $10 per hour x 8 hours x 30 3 days = $256,800 4 • Pay stub violation4: 30 employees (going back one year from the filing of the 5 complaint) x 26 pay periods x $100 per violation = $78,000 6 • Interest: 10% 7 Based on these calculations, plaintiffs estimate that their potential recovery for all claims 8 could be about $2 million. However, certain downward adjustments were made to account for the 9 weakness of plaintiffs’ claims for meal and rest break violations. Specifically, plaintiffs state that 10 defendants’ records show that employees regularly took meal and rest breaks, and thus do not 11 support meal or rest break violations, which appear to comprise approximately one-third of their 12 claimed damages. Additionally, plaintiffs say that their analysis of defendants’ records indicates 13 that defendants paid a considerable portion of overtime in cash. Based on Mr. Ozuna’s scribbled 14 handwritten notes and payment method, plaintiffs’ counsel estimates that defendants might be able 15 to prove that class members are owed only $500,000. 16 Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval apparently is unopposed. Upon 17 consideration of the moving papers, as well as the parties’ Amended Joint Stipulation for Class 18 Action Settlement and Release (“Amended Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A and 19 incorporated herein by reference, and good cause appearing based on the record presented, the 20 Court grants plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval. However, this order is subject 21 to plaintiffs, with defendants’ agreement, making several corrections to their Notice of 22 Proposed Class Action Settlement as noted below:: 23 1. To the extent defined in the Amended Agreement, the terms in this order shall have the 24

25 2 See Cal. Labor Code §§ 201(a), 203(a).

26 3 Plaintiffs previously advised that 107 of the total class members are former employees. Dkt. No. 51 at ECF 2. The Court has used that number instead of the 118 plaintiffs used in their renewed 27 motion. 1 meanings set forth therein. 2 2. For settlement purposes, the Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective 3 action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for FLSA Class Members consisting of all 4 individuals who are employed or who have been employed by defendants as non- 5 exempt hourly employees involved in the tortilla and chip manufacturing process from 6 May 14, 2015 through March 19, 2019 who allege violations under the FLSA as 7 described in claim one of the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). 8 3. For settlement purposes, and pursuant to Rule 23, the Court preliminarily certifies a 9 class of Rule 23 Class Members, consisting of all individuals who are employed or 10 have been employed by defendants as non-exempt hourly employees involved in the 11 tortilla and chip manufacturing process between May 14, 2014 and March 19, 2019 and 12 who allege violations under California law as described in claims two through seven of 13 the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). 14 4. Rule 23 Class Members and FLSA Class Members are referred to herein collectively as 15 “Class Members.” 16 5. For settlement purposes, the Court designates plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro 17 Camilo, Ricardo G. Sanchez and Jose Manuel Lopez as representatives of the 18 conditionally certified class and collective action, and appoints James Dal Bon of the 19 Law Offices of James Dal Bon and Victoria Books of Booke & Ajlouny as Class 20 Counsel. 21 6. Subject to the receipt and consideration by the Court of any objections to or comments 22 on the Amended Agreement, the Court finds the Amended Agreement and all of its 23 terms to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of the Rule 23 Class 24 Members and FLSA Class Members as defined herein. The proposed settlement falls 25 within the range of possible settlement approval, was negotiated at arms-length with 26 the assistance of a mediator, and is sufficient to warrant sending notice to the Class 27 Members for their comments. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the proposed 1 7.

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

Related

Harry Dennis v. Stephanie Berg
697 F.3d 858 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United Parcel Services, Inc. v. Superior Court
196 Cal. App. 4th 57 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Camilo v. Ozuna, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camilo-v-ozuna-cand-2019.