Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 22, 2024
Docket3:22-cv-01404
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLORENTINO LOPEZ, individually, Case No. 3:22-cv-01404-JES-DDL 12 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Plaintiff, OF CLASS AND PAGA ACTION 14 SETTLEMENT vs. 15 UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a ECF No. 45 16 Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 LUIS HERNANDEZ, individually, 20 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 21 Plaintiff, 22 vs. 23 UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a 24 Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, 25 inclusive, 26 Defendant. 27

28 1 ORDER 2 WHEREAS, a proposed Class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) 3 Action is pending before the Court, entitled Florentino Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, 4 LLC, United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:22- 5 cv-01404-JES-DDL; 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Florentino Lopez and Luis Hernandez (“Plaintiffs”) 7 and Defendant Utility Tree Service, LLC (“Utility Tree”) (collectively, the 8 “Parties”) have entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA 9 Settlement and Release (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement,” attached as 10 Exhibit 1 to the accompanying declaration of Kane Moon); and 11 WHEREAS, the Court has considered all papers submitted on Plaintiffs’ 12 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement, including 13 the Declaration of Kane Moon, the Declaration of Plaintiff Florentino Lopez, the 14 Declaration of Plaintiff Luis Hernandez, the Joint Stipulation of Class and PAGA 15 Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement”) and all exhibits attached thereto, 16 records and prior proceedings to date in this matter, and good cause appearing, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED as follows: 18 1. The Parties have agreed to settle and seek a Judgment resolving this 19 Action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. 20 The Court notes that Defendant has agreed to create a common fund of $850,000.00 21 to cover (a) settlement payments to Class Members who do not validly opt out; (b) 22 Class Representative Service Payments of up to $5,000.00 for each Plaintiff; (c) 23 Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees not to exceed 33 13/% of the Gross Settlement 24 Amount ($283,333.33) and up to $25,000.00 in costs for actual litigation expenses 25 incurred by Class Counsel; (d) Settlement Administration costs of up to $15,000.00; 26 and (e) PAGA Settlement payment in the amount of $25,000.00, with 75% 27 ($18,750.00) to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency 28 (“LWDA”) and 25% ($6,250.00) to the Employees’ PAGA portion. The definitions 1 in the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth in this 2 Order, and all other terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as 3 ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. 4 2. The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the 5 Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, is preliminarily approved as 6 fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class set 7 forth below. The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement substantially 8 fulfills the purposes and objectives of the Class and PAGA Action and provides 9 substantial relief to the Settlement Class without the risks, burdens, costs, or delay 10 associated with continued litigation, trial, and/or appeal. The Settlement is not a 11 finding or admission of liability by the Defendant or any other person, nor a finding 12 of the validity of any claims asserted in the Action or of any wrongdoing or any 13 violation of law. 14 3. Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, have investigated the pertinent 15 facts and have evaluated the risks associated with continued litigation, trial and/or 16 appeal. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement: (a) is the result of arm’s- 17 length negotiations between the Parties and experienced counsel; (b) is sufficient to 18 warrant notice of the settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to be disseminated 19 to the Settlement Class; (c) meets all applicable requirements of law, including 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 21 Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class 22 4. For purposes of settlement only: (a) Moon Law Group, PC and 23 Wilshire Law Firm, PLC are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; 24 and (b) Plaintiffs Florentino Lopez and Luis Hernandez are appointed Class 25 Representatives. The Court finds that these attorneys are competent and capable of 26 exercising the responsibilities of Class Counsel and that Plaintiffs will adequately 27 protect the interests of the Settlement Class defined below. 28 5. For purposes of settlement only and for purposes of disseminating 1 Class Notice, and without prejudice to Defendant’s right to contest class certification 2 if the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved, the Court conditionally certifies 3 the following Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement: “all persons 4 who worked for Utility Tree in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee 5 at any time from February 15, 2020 to the date of the Court’s order preliminarily 6 approving this Settlement.” Excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons who 7 properly and timely elect to opt out. 8 6. The Court finds, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, that the 9 Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, and, solely 10 within the context of and for the purposes of settlement only, that the Settlement 11 Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 12 and specifically, that: (1) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all 13 members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of fact and law common to the 14 Settlement Class; (3) the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the 15 claims of the members of the Settlement Class; (4) the Class Representatives and 16 Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the 17 Settlement Class; (5) common questions of law or fact predominate over questions 18 affecting individual members; and (6) a class action is a superior method for fairly 19 and efficiently adjudicating the Action. 20 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court’s final approval, 21 or if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is 22 terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s conditional grant of 23 class certification shall be vacated, null, and void in all respects, and the Class 24 Representative and the Settlement Class will once again bear the burden of 25 establishing the propriety of class certification for purposes of litigation. In such case, 26 neither the conditional certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, 27 nor any other act relating to the negotiation or execution of the Settlement Agreement 28 shall be considered as a factor in connection with any class certification issue(s). 1 Class Counsel’s Award and Class Representatives’ Service Payment 2 8. The Court preliminarily approves Class Counsel’s ability to request 3 attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount ($288,333.33), 4 and costs/expenses not exceeding $25,000.00. 5 9. The Court preliminarily approves the requested Class Representative 6 enhancement payments of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Florentino Lopez and $5,000.00 to 7 Plaintiff Luis Hernandez. 8 Release 9 10.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-utility-tree-service-llc-casd-2024.