Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Masonite Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 1, 2023
Docket5:21-cv-00025
StatusUnknown

This text of Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Masonite Corporation (Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Masonite Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Masonite Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

111 Kane Moon (SBN 249834) JJ SS -- 66 Allen Feghali (SBN 301080) 222 Enzo Nabiev (SBN 332118) Sohyun Oh (SBN 341157) 333 MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 444 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 555 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com 666 E-mail: allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com E-mail: enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com 777 E-mail: julie.oh@moonyanglaw.com 888 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa 999 111000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 111111 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 111222 111333 JESUS MENDOZA and CESAR DE LA Case No.: 5:21-cv-00025-SSS-KKx ROSA, individually, and on behalf of all 111444 others similarly situated, [Assigned to Hon. Sunshine S. Sykes] 111555 Plaintiffs, ORDER AND JUDGMENT [Dkts. 49 & 50]: 111666 vs. 1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT 111777 MASONITE CORPORATION, a CLASS; Delaware corporation; and 2. FINALLY APPROVING 111888 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; 3. AWARDING FEES AND COSTS 111999 Defendants. TO CLASS COUNSEL; 4. AWARDING SERVICE 222000 PAYMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS; AND, 222111 5. DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 222222 222333 Date: July 28, 2023 Time: 2:00 p.m. 222444 Action Filed: November 17, 2020

222555 222666 222777 222888 1 || TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiffs JESUS MENDOZA and CESAR DE LA ROSA (‘Plaintiffs’) and 3 || Defendant Masonite Corporation (“Defendant” or “Masonite’’) have reached terms of 4 || settlement for a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”’) representative 5 || action. 6 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for final approval of a class and representative action 7 || settlement of the claims asserted against Defendant in this action, memorialized in the 8 || Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Settlement”) (see, 9 || Declaration of Kane Moon in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for (1) Final Approval of 10 || Class Action Settlement and (2) Award for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Service 11 || Awards to Plaintiffs [“Moon Decl.”], at Exh. 1) with attached Exhibits, including the 12 || proposed form of Notice. In addition, Plaintiffs concurrently filed a motion for an award 13 || of fees, costs, and class representative enhancement awards, which was considered in 14 || conjunction with the motion for final approval. 15 The Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant (together, “the Parties”) provides 16 || that the Parties stipulate to certification of a Class for settlement purposes only. The 17 || Settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized 18 || terms in this Order shall have the same meaning as in the Settlement unless indicated 19 || otherwise. A summary of the terms of the Settlement is as follows: 20 e Defendant stipulates to certification of a Settlement Class, to include all Class 21 Members, for purposes of Settlement only. (Settlement, 4 78.) 22 e The Class is: All persons who worked for Masonite in California as an hourly- 23 paid, non-exempt employees during the Class Period (the “Class Period” is July 24 14, 2017, through April 12, 2023). (Settlement, {[§| 5-6.) Excluded from the 25 Settlement Class are Class Members that timely submit valid Requests for 26 Exclusion. (Settlement, 4] 5.) 27 e Defendant agrees that $635,000.00, known as the “Gross Settlement 28 Amount,” plus the employer’s share of any payroll taxes related to the

1 settlement payments, represents the maximum amount that it will pay out 2 under the Settlement (Settlement, { 13), inclusive of the following: (a) 3 settlement payments to Class Members who do not validly opt out 4 (Settlement, {| 14); (b) the maximum gross amount for Class Counsels’ 5 attorneys’ fees of $211,645.50 (Settlement, 4 3); (c) the maximum gross 6 amount for all of Class Counsels’ litigation costs and associated expenses, 7 which shall not exceed $18,000.00 (Settlement, 4 3); (d) the anticipated gross 8 amount for claims administration costs, estimated not to exceed $12,000.00 9 (Settlement, §] 29); (ec) the Class Representative Enhancement Payments to be 10 made to Plaintiffs, which is a maximum of $5,000.00 each ($10,000.00 total) 11 (Settlement, § 7); (f) the maximum gross amount for payment to the 12 California Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”’) as part of the 13 consideration for the release of all Released Claims under PAGA, which is 14 $45,000.00 (75% of $60,000 allocated to PAGA) (Settlement, § 38(a)). 15 e The Settlement is a non-reversionary settlement. (Settlement, {| 39.) 16 e Each Class Member who did not opt out will be paid their share of the 17 settlement, subject to certain taxes and withholdings. (Settlement, § 42.) 18 e Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $211,645.50 for attorneys’ 19 fees. (Settlement, {] 3.) 20 e Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $18,000.00 for litigation 21 costs. (Settlement, { 3.) 22 e The Class Representative service payments requested will be $5,000.00 to 23 each ($10,000.00 total). (Settlement, § 7.) 24 e IfaClass Member has not cashed his or her check(s) within 180 days of 25 issuance, the funds representing the “uncashed checks” shall be transmitted by 26 the Administrator to the California State Controller’s Office for Unclaimed 27 Property in the name of each Class Member who failed to cash their 28 Settlement Payment check prior to the void date. (Settlement, {] 53.)

111 After reviewing the Settlement, the proposed Class Notice, and other related 222 documents, and having heard the argument of Counsel for respective Parties, if any, IT IS 333 HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 444 1. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of a 555 settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of 666 settlement, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because the proposed Class is so 777 numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there are questions of law 888 or fact common to the Class, the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the 999 Class; and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The 111000 requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied because questions of law or fact common to 111111 Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 111222 Members. 111333 2. The Parties’ settlement appears to have been made and entered into in 111444 good faith and is hereby finally approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, subject to 111555 the limitations on the requested fees and payments as set forth below. 111666 3. The Court further finds that the settlement of Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim is fair 111777 and reasonable, and finally approves the Settlement and release of that claim and the 111888 payment to the LWDA in the amount of $45,000.00. Plaintiffs have provided evidence 111999 that the LWDA received notice of the proposed settlement in the manner required by the 222000 LWDA. 222111 4. The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the 222222 purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: 222333 All persons who worked for Masonite in California as an hourly-paid, non- 222444 exempt employees at any time from July 14, 2017, through April 12, 2023. 222555 Participating Class Members are those Class Members who did not timely request 222666 exclusion from the Settlement. Based on the Declaration of Stephen Gomez on behalf of 222777 Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration, only two Class Members, Fredy W. 222888 Quezada and Clarito Dafalia, submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion pursuant 111 to the Settlement. 222 5.

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

Related

Arias v. Superior Court
209 P.3d 923 (California Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Buck Otto White
816 F.3d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jesus Mendoza and Cesar De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Masonite Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesus-mendoza-and-cesar-de-la-rosa-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-cacd-2023.