Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn.

E.D. California

Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn.

DecidedApril 1, 2024

Docket1:18-cv-00517

StatusUnknown

This text of Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn. (Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn.) 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

Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSE URENA, an individual, on behalf of ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-0517 JLT EPG himself and others similarly situated, ) 12 ) ORDER APPOINTING CY PRES BENEFICIARY Plaintiff, ) AND DIRECTING THE SETTLEMENT 13 ) ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE THE PAYMENT v. ) TO THE CY PRES BENEFICIARY 14 ) CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND ) (Doc. 77) 15 GROWERS ASSOCIATION, et al., ) )

16 ) Defendants. ) 17 )

18 The parties report that 1,178.04 remains in uncashed funds following the supplemental 19 payments to class members. (Doc. 77.) The parties now jointly request the appointment of California 20 Farmerworker Foundation as the cy pres beneficiary, which the parties report is “a nonprofit law firm 21 dedicated to building better futures for farm workers.” (Id. at 2.) 22 The Ninth Circuit determined a proposed cy pres recipient should be “tethered to the nature of 23 the lawsuit and the interest of the silent class members.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 24 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, the Ninth Circuit “require[s] that there be a driving nexus between the 25 plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries.” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012) 26 (citing Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038). The Court explained that without such tethering, the distribution 27 of funds “may create the appearance of impropriety” by catering “to the whims and self interests of the 28 parties, their counsel, or the court.” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038. Thus, a cy pres award should not 1 benefit a group that is “too remote from the plaintiff class.” Six Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1308. 2 In identifying a cy pres beneficiary, the Ninth Circuit directs courts to consider whether awards 3 to the beneficiary “(1) address the objectives of the underlying statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or 4 (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be benefitted.” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1040. 5 Further, the Court must consider whether the cy pres distribution is appropriate given the “size and 6 geographic diversity” of the class members. Id. at 1040-41 (citing, e.g., In re Airline Ticket Comm’n 7 Antitrust Litig., 307 F.3d 679, 683 (8th Cir. 2002); Houck on Behalf of U.S. v. Folding Carton Admin. 8 Comm., 881 F.2d 494, 502 (7th Cir. 1989)). 9 The parties observe, “The underlying Labor Code Sections brought by Plaintiff are laws 10 intended to establish safe and fair working conditions for all California employees, including 11 farmworkers, such as minimum wages/overtime and meal/rest periods.” (Doc. 77 at 2-3.) According 12 to the parties, “[s]uch laws create better working conditions for farmworkers, which aligns with the 13 CFF’s mission to create better futures for farmworkers.” (Id.) The parties also note that because the 14 Settlement Class “is composed largely of farmworker,” the organization “certainly targets the Class.” 15 (Id.) Further, the parties direct the Court to the organization’s website, which indicates CFF operates in 16 the counties of Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Riverside, San Luis Obipso, and Santa Barbara. 17 (See id.) Given the many locations of CFF, the Court finds it is likely class members—which includes 18 employees of Defendant throughout the state of California—will benefit from the work performed by 19 CFF. It appears the mission of CFF is appropriately tethered to the interests of the Settlement Class, 20 and CFF is an appropriate cy pres beneficiary for the remaining uncashed funds. 21 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. The parties’ joint request to appoint a cy pres beneficiary (Doc. 77) is GRANTED. 23 2. California Farmworker Foundation is APPOINTED as the cy pres beneficiary for the 24 remaining uncashed funds. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The Settlement Administrator SHALL pay the remaining $1,178.04 to the cy pres 2 beneficiary within 7 days of the date of service of this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 51 Dated: _ March 29, 2024 Charis [Tourn 6 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSE URENA, an individual, on behalf of ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-0517 JLT EPG himself and others similarly situated, ) 12 ) ORDER APPOINTING CY PRES BENEFICIARY Plaintiff, ) AND DIRECTING THE SETTLEMENT 13 ) ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE THE PAYMENT v. ) TO THE CY PRES BENEFICIARY 14 ) CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND ) (Doc. 77) 15 GROWERS ASSOCIATION, et al., ) )

16 ) Defendants. ) 17 )

18 The parties report that 1,178.04 remains in uncashed funds following the supplemental 19 payments to class members. (Doc. 77.) The parties now jointly request the appointment of California 20 Farmerworker Foundation as the cy pres beneficiary, which the parties report is “a nonprofit law firm 21 dedicated to building better futures for farm workers.” (Id. at 2.) 22 The Ninth Circuit determined a proposed cy pres recipient should be “tethered to the nature of 23 the lawsuit and the interest of the silent class members.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 24 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, the Ninth Circuit “require[s] that there be a driving nexus between the 25 plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries.” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012) 26 (citing Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038). The Court explained that without such tethering, the distribution 27 of funds “may create the appearance of impropriety” by catering “to the whims and self interests of the 28 parties, their counsel, or the court.” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038. Thus, a cy pres award should not 1 benefit a group that is “too remote from the plaintiff class.” Six Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1308. 2 In identifying a cy pres beneficiary, the Ninth Circuit directs courts to consider whether awards 3 to the beneficiary “(1) address the objectives of the underlying statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or 4 (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be benefitted.” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1040. 5 Further, the Court must consider whether the cy pres distribution is appropriate given the “size and 6 geographic diversity” of the class members. Id. at 1040-41 (citing, e.g., In re Airline Ticket Comm’n 7 Antitrust Litig., 307 F.3d 679, 683 (8th Cir. 2002); Houck on Behalf of U.S. v. Folding Carton Admin. 8 Comm., 881 F.2d 494, 502 (7th Cir. 1989)). 9 The parties observe, “The underlying Labor Code Sections brought by Plaintiff are laws 10 intended to establish safe and fair working conditions for all California employees, including 11 farmworkers, such as minimum wages/overtime and meal/rest periods.” (Doc. 77 at 2-3.) According 12 to the parties, “[s]uch laws create better working conditions for farmworkers, which aligns with the 13 CFF’s mission to create better futures for farmworkers.” (Id.) The parties also note that because the 14 Settlement Class “is composed largely of farmworker,” the organization “certainly targets the Class.” 15 (Id.) Further, the parties direct the Court to the organization’s website, which indicates CFF operates in 16 the counties of Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Riverside, San Luis Obipso, and Santa Barbara. 17 (See id.) Given the many locations of CFF, the Court finds it is likely class members—which includes 18 employees of Defendant throughout the state of California—will benefit from the work performed by 19 CFF. It appears the mission of CFF is appropriately tethered to the interests of the Settlement Class, 20 and CFF is an appropriate cy pres beneficiary for the remaining uncashed funds. 21 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. The parties’ joint request to appoint a cy pres beneficiary (Doc. 77) is GRANTED. 23 2. California Farmworker Foundation is APPOINTED as the cy pres beneficiary for the 24 remaining uncashed funds. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The Settlement Administrator SHALL pay the remaining $1,178.04 to the cy pres 2 beneficiary within 7 days of the date of service of this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 51 Dated: _ March 29, 2024 Charis [Tourn 6 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Re: Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litigation Travel Network, Ltd., a New Jersey Corporation, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, American Society of Travel Agents, National Association for Public Interest Law, Intervenor on Appeal v. United Air Lines, Inc. American Airlines, Inc. Continental Airlines, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Usairways, Inc.

307 F.3d 679 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)

Harry Dennis v. Stephanie Berg

697 F.3d 858 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-urena-v-central-california-almond-growers-assn-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack