Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC

District Court, S.D. California·Decided May 23, 2024·No. 3:22-cv-01404·Unknown

Opinion

888 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 999 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 111000

111111 FLORENTINO LOPEZ, individually, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01404-JES-DDL 111222 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER: 111333 Plaintiff, 1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT 111444 CLASS; vs. 2. FINALLY APPROVING 111555 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a 3. AWARDING FEES AND COSTS 111666 Pennsylvania Limited Liability TO CLASS COUNSEL; Company; and DOES 1 through 10, 4. AWARDING SERVICE 111777 inclusive, PAYMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS; AND, 111888 Defendant. 5. DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 111999 LUIS HERNANDEZ, individually, [ECF Nos. 53, 54] 222000 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 222111 Plaintiff, 222222 vs. 222333 UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a 222444 Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, 222555 inclusive, 222666 Defendant. 222777

222888 111 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 222 Plaintiffs FLORENTINO LOPEZ and LUIS HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiffs”) and 333 Defendant Utility Tree Service, LLC (“Defendant”) have reached terms of settlement for a 444 putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action. 555 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for final approval of a class and representative action 666 settlement of the claims asserted against Defendant in this action, memorialized in the 777 Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Settlement”) (see, 888 Declaration of Kane Moon in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for (1) Final Approval of 999 Class Action Settlement and (2) Award for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Service 111000 Awards to Plaintiffs [“Moon Decl.”], at Exh. 1) with attached Exhibits, including the 111111 proposed form of Notice. In addition, Plaintiffs concurrently filed a motion for an award 111222 of fees, costs, and class representative enhancement awards, which was considered in 111333 conjunction with the motion for final approval. 111444 The Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant (together, “the Parties”) provides 111555 that the Parties stipulate to certification of a Class for settlement purposes only. The 111666 Settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized 111777 terms in this Order shall have the same meaning as in the Settlement unless indicated 111888 otherwise. A summary of the terms of the Settlement is as follows: 111999 • Defendant stipulates to certification of a Settlement Class, to include all Class 222000 Members, for purposes of Settlement only. (Settlement, ¶ 78.) 222111 • The Class is: All persons who worked for Defendant in California as an hourly- 222222 paid, non-exempt employee at any time from February 15, 2020 to January 22, 222333 2024 (the “Class Period”). (Settlement, ¶¶ 5-6.) Excluded from the Settlement 222444 Class are all persons who properly and timely elect to opt out. (Settlement, ¶ 5.) 222555 • Defendant agrees that $850,000.00, known as the “Gross Settlement 222666 Amount,” plus the employer’s share of any payroll taxes related to the 222777 settlement payments, represents the maximum amount that it will pay out 222888 under the Settlement (Settlement, ¶ 13), inclusive of the following: (a) 111 settlement payments to Class Members who do not validly opt out 222 (Settlement, ¶ 14); (b) the maximum gross amount for Class Counsels’ 333 attorneys’ fees of $283,333.33 (Settlement, ¶ 3); (c) the maximum gross 444 amount for all of Class Counsels’ litigation costs and associated expenses, 555 which shall not exceed $25,000.00 (Settlement, ¶ 3); (d) the anticipated gross 666 amount for claims administration costs, estimated not to exceed $15,000.00 777 (Settlement, ¶ 29); (e) the Class Representative Enhancement Payments to be 888 made to Plaintiffs, which is a maximum of $5,000.00 each ($10,000.00 total) 999 (Settlement, ¶ 7); (f) the maximum gross amount for payment to the 111000 California Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) as part of the 111111 consideration for the release of all Released Claims under PAGA, which is 111222 $18,750.00 (75% of $25,000 allocated to PAGA) (Settlement, ¶ 38(a)). 111333 • The Settlement is a non-reversionary settlement. (Settlement, ¶ 39.) 111444 • Each Class Member who did not opt out will be paid their share of the 111555 settlement, subject to certain taxes and withholdings. (Settlement, ¶ 42.) 111666 • Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $283,333.33 for attorneys’ 111777 fees. (Settlement, ¶ 3.) 111888 • Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $25,000.00 for litigation 111999 costs. (Settlement, ¶ 3.) 222000 • The Class Representative service payments requested will be $5,000.00 to 222111 each ($10,000.00 total). (Settlement, ¶ 7.) 222222 • If a Class Member has not cashed his or her check(s) within 180 days of 222333 issuance, the funds representing the “uncashed checks” shall be transmitted by 222444 the Administrator to the California State Controller’s Office for Unclaimed 222555 Property in the name of each Class Member who failed to cash their 222666 Settlement Payment check prior to the void date. (Settlement, ¶ 53.) 222777 / / / 222888 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, 333 IT IS 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 $18,750.00. 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 Defendant in California as an hourly-paid, 222444 non-exempt employee at any time from February 15, 2020, through 222555 January 22, 2024. 222666 Participating Class Members are those Class Members who did not timely request 222777 exclusion from the Settlement. Based on the Declaration of Gillian McCreedy on behalf 222888 of Simpluris, Inc., no Class Members submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion 111 pursuant to the Settlement. 222 5. The distribution of the Notice Packet directed to the Class Members as set 333 forth in the Settlement and the Court’s directions has been completed in conformity 444 with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Notice Packet provided due and adequate 555 notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed 666 settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement, to all persons entitled to

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

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

Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC (Lopez v. Utility Tree Service, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)