Singletary v. G6 Hospitality LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00270
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANGELIQUE SINGLETARY, an Case No. 3:20-cv-00270-LAB- individual, on behalf of herself AHG 11 and on behalf of all persons 12 similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING:

13 Plaintiffs, 1) MOTION FOR FINAL 14 v. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT [Dkt. 86]; and 15 G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, a 2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 16 Limited Liability Company; FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE MOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P., a AWARDS [Dkt. 85] 17 Limited Partnership; and Does 1 18 through 50, Inclusive, et al., Defendants. 19 20

21 Plaintiffs Angelique Singletary and Iyana Blackwell (“Plaintiffs”) were 22 prospective employees of G6 Hospitality LLC (“Defendant”). They filed this 23 putative class action against Defendant asserting claims for failure to make 24 proper disclosures and failure to obtain proper authorization under the Fair 25 Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), failure to make proper disclosure under the 26 Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), and unfair 27 competition under California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiffs now 28 move for final approval of the class settlement (the “Settlement”) with 1 Defendants and of payments to the Class, the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel and 2 the Settlement Administrator. (Dkt. 86-2; Dkt. 85-1). 3 The Court has considered: 4 • Plaintiffs’ briefing in support of the Motion for Award of 5 Attorneys Fees and Costs and Service Awards (“the “Fee 6 Motion”) (Dkt. 85); 7 • Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of 8 Class Settlement (the “Final Approval Motion”) (Dkt. 86); 9 • Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 10 the Final Approval Motion (Dkt. 86-1); 11 • The declarations and exhibits submitted in support of each 12 Motion and the Settlement, including the First Amended Class 13 Action Settlement Agreement, (Dkt. 86-2 Ex. 2), and the 14 Stipulation to Amend the First Amended Class Action 15 Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 79 Ex. 1, and together with the 16 First Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement, the 17 “Agreement”); 18 • This Court’s experiences, observations, and file developed in 19 presiding over the resolution of this matter; and 20 • The relevant law; 21 • The entire record in this proceeding, including but not limited to 22 the briefing, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support of 23 preliminary approval of the Settlement in its various iterations, 24 including: 25 o The Notice Plan for providing full and fair notice to the 26 Class; 27 o The lack of any Class Member objections to the 28 Settlement and the four timely requests for exclusion 1 from the Settlement; 2 o The absence of any objection or response by any official 3 after the provisions of all notices required by the Class 4 Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715; 5 and 6 o Counsel’s oral presentations at the two hearings on the 7 Settlement’s fairness; 8 • This Court’s experiences, observations, and file developed in 9 presiding over resolution of this matter; and 10 • The relevant law. 11 Based upon these considerations and the Court’s findings of fact and 12 conclusions of law as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and as 13 discussed below, IT IS ORDERED: 14 1) Final Approval of the Settlement, the terms of which are set forth 15 in the Agreement, is GRANTED; 16 2) The Settlement Class is CERTIFIED; 17 3) Plaintiffs Angelique Singletary and Iyana Blackwell are appointed 18 as Class Representatives and the incentive awards requested in 19 the Fee Motion are APPROVED; 20 4) The payments to Claims Administrator KCC, LLC requested in the 21 Fee Motion are APPROVED; 22 5) Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is appointed as 23 Class Counsel and the attorneys’ fees requested in the Fee Motion 24 are APPROVED; 25 6) Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in 26 accordance with the terms of this Order. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Definitions 3 Except as otherwise specified herein, the Court adopts all defined 4 terms set forth in the Agreement for purposes of this Final Approval Order. 5 II. Jurisdiction 6 This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, which vests District Court with original 8 jurisdiction because there is a federal question. 9 The Court also has original jurisdiction over this civil action 10 pursuant to CAFA, Pub. L. No. 109-2 (enacted Feb. 18, 2005) (codified at 11 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1453, 1711–1715), as: (1) the action involves 100 12 or more potential class members; (2) any class members are citizens of a 13 state different from any Defendant; and (3) the aggregate amount-in- 14 controversy exceeds $5,000,000,00, exclusive of costs and interest. 28 15 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(6), and (d)(11)(B)(i). 16 III. Findings and Conclusions 17 A. Definition of Class and Class Members 18 The Court adopts the Preliminary Approval Order’s definitions of the 19 Class, comprised of the Class Members. The definitions of Class and 20 “Class Period” are reproduced below: 21 • “Class” means all individuals who applied to work for either 22 defendant G6 Hospitality LLC and/or defendant Motel 6 Operating 23 L.P. and submitted one of Defendants’ background check forms 24 that were allegedly defective because the form contained 25 information for multiple states and for whom background checks 26 were run by Defendants or on Defendants’ behalf in the United 27 States during the Class Period. The Class specifically excludes 28 individuals who applied to work for Defendants and underwent no 1 background check in connection with their application or who 2 underwent a wholly unrelated background check during the Class 3 Period. 4 • Class Period means the period of time from December 10, 2017 5 to May 3, 2020. 6 The Court excludes from the Class all individuals who requested 7 such exclusion. Those individuals are listed in the Declaration of Claims by 8 Claims Administrator Sharon Howard. (Dkt. 88 ¶ 7). 9 B. Definition of Class and Class Members 10 Before approving a settlement of Class Claims, the Court must 11 confirm that the Class Form is appropriate to the case. Rule 23(a) requires 12 a class to satisfy four prerequisites, generally referred to as numerosity, 13 commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. If these are 14 satisfied, the Court must confirm that the action meets one of the class 15 action types enumerated in Rule 23(b)—as relevant here, subsection (3) of 16 that Rule requires that the common questions predominate over individual 17 ones, and that a class action be superior to other available methods for 18 fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Because the Court finds 19 that each of these requirements is met, the Court grants final certification 20 of the Class. All Class Members are subject to this Order. 21 1. Numerosity 22 The Class here includes 14,078 members (after accounting for the 23 four opt-outs). This is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all Class 24 Members is impracticable, so Rule 23’s numerosity requirement is 25 satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). 26 2. Commonality 27 A properly certified class must also have questions of law or fact 28 common to the class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(a). Each Class 1 Member submitted a background form provided by defendants, and those 2 forms were allegedly defective. The proposed Class satisfies this 3 requirement because its claims depend on a question regarding the 4 sufficiency of the disclosures contained in the consent form Defendant 5 provided to each Class Member. 6 3. Typicality 7 A class can be certified only if the class representative’s claims are 8 typical of the class’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). A representative’s 9 claims are typical “if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent 10 class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. 11 Chrysler Co., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other 12 grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Like the 13 other Class Members, each Plaintiff allegedly applied for a job with 14 Defendants, submitted an allegedly violative background check form, and 15 underwent a background check. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are 16 reasonably co-extensive with those of the other Class Members. 17 4. Adequacy of Class Representatives 18 The next prerequisite to class certification, adequacy of 19 representation, “serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named 20 parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. 21 Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). No party or 22 objector contends that the Class lack adequate representation, and Class 23 Counsel has fully and completely prosecuted all claims available to the 24 Class. Plaintiffs possess no apparent interests adverse to the Class. Class 25 Counsel and the named Plaintiffs are adequate to represent the Class. 26 5. The Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) 27 Having met Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class certification, Plaintiffs 28 contend that the Class can be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). (See 1 Dkt. 62 ¶ 31(c)). This requires the Court to find that questions of law or fact 2 common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only 3 individual members and that class treatment is the superior means to 4 adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). These requirements 5 are satisfied as to each Class. 6 Predominance can be established by the existence of a 7 companywide policy or practice. See, e.g., Duque v. Bank of America, 8 Case No. SA CV 18-1298 (MRQx), 2018 WL 10483813 at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. 9 Dec. 10, 2018). Here, the Class’s claims arise from Defendant’s allegedly 10 defective background check forms. The common question surrounding 11 these policies predominate over any individual questions, so the 12 predominance requirement is met. 13 The Court must also confirm that the class form is superior to other 14 methods of litigation before certifying a class under Rule 23(b). This inquiry 15 “requires determination of whether the objectives of the particular class 16 action procedure will be achieved in the particular case.” Hanlon , 150 F.3d 17 at 1023. The “dominant[]” objective of the class form is “vindication of the 18 rights of groups of people who individually would be without effective 19 strength to bring their opponents into court at all. . . . The policy at the very 20 core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small 21 recovery do not provide incentive for any individual to bring a solo action 22 prosecuting his or her rights.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 617 (cleaned up). The 23 Class here consists of over ten thousand members and the released 24 claims, absent proof of actual damages, are limited to $10,000 or less (and 25 typically result in far smaller recoveries). 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1) (willful 26 violator liable for actual damages “not less than $100 and not more than 27 $1,000”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.50(a)(1) (defendant liable under ICRAA in 28 individual actions for greater of actual damages or $10,000); Cal. Civ. Code 1 § 1785.31(a)(2) (under CCRAA, willful violator is liable for actual damages 2 and punitive damages between $100 and $5,000); see also, e.g., Pietras 3 v. Sentry Ins. Co., 513 F. Supp. 2d 983, 985 (surveying FCRA class actions 4 and finding average settlement of $34.59 per class member). The Court 5 finds that each individual Class Member’s claim would be sufficiently small 6 that they wouldn’t have a sufficient incentive to bring individual actions, so 7 the superiority requirement is satisfied. 8 With the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) satisfied, the Court 9 grants final certification of the Class for settlement purposes only. 10 IV. The Settlement 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires “district courts to 12 review proposed class action settlements for fairness, reasonableness, 13 and adequacy.” Roses, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management, LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 14 1048 (9th Cir. 2019). Because named plaintiffs, class counsel, and defense 15 counsel may have incentives inconsistent with the interests of absent class 16 members, the Court must take care to protect the due process rights of 17 those absent class members. And because this incongruity is most 18 pronounced where the settlement comes prior to class certification, 19 “settlement approval requires a higher standard of fairness and a more 20 probing inquiry than may normally be required under Rule 23(e).” Id. At 21 1048–49 (internal marks and citation omitted). The Court must look 22 particularly for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest to protect 23 absent class members. Id. 24 Applying this standard, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, 25 reasonable, and adequate to the Class in light of the complexity, expense, 26 and likely duration of the litigation (including appellate proceedings), as well 27 as the risks involved in stablishing liability, damages, and the 28 appropriateness of class treatment through trial and appeal. See Rodriguez 1 v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir. 2009). The Settlement 2 appears to be the result of arm’s-length negotiation, and the record doesn’t 3 support a conclusion that the Settlement is the result of either: 1) collusion 4 among Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, and Defendants; or 2) conflicts of 5 interest between Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and the 6 Class Members, on the other. 7 A. Generally 8 Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant will pay a total of 9 $1,397,570. After deducting all payments of Court-approved attorney fees 10 and expenses, class representative service awards, and settlement 11 administration expenses from the Gross Settlement Amount, 25% of the 12 remaining Net Settlement Amount will be paid to Class Members. 13 B. The Settlement Affords Meaningful Relief 14 Accounting for the Court-approved attorney fees and expenses 15 payments, class representative service payments, and settlement 16 administration expenses provided in this Order, the Class will receive 17 $821,714, or $63.29 per Class Member. This is a reasonable recovery for 18 the Class’s claims. See, e.g., Pietras, 513 F. Supp. 2d at 985 (surveying 19 FCRA class actions and finding average settlement of $34.59 per class 20 member). 21 On the other side of the ledger and as described in further detail infra, 22 Section VII, participating Class Members will release the claims actually 23 brought and other background check claims that could have been brought 24 under federal and state law arising out of the allegations of the operative 25 complaint and that accrued on or before May 3, 2020, but excluding all 26 other claims, including claims for labor law violations. Plaintiffs themselves 27 will release all “claims, transactions or occurrences between them [and 28 Defendant or its affiliated entities or individuals] that occurred during the 1 Class Period.” (Dkt. 86-2 at 4). 2 The Court finds the release reasonable in scope and, in light of the 3 risks, costs, and duration of continued litigation, the amount paid to 4 Plaintiffs and the Class fair, reasonable, and adequate consideration for 5 that release. 6 C. No Collusion or Conflicts of Interest 7 The Court finds no evidence to support a conclusion that Plaintiffs 8 and the Defendant colluded. To the contrary, up to and through the 9 Settlement, the Parties vigorously litigated and negotiated this action, as 10 evidence by the docket. 11 However, the Agreement’s “clear sailing” provision, under which 12 Defendants agreed not to contest any request for fees exceeding 25% of 13 the Settlement funds, can be a “subtle sign of collusion.” SFBSC 14 Management, 944 F.3d at 1049. The presence of such a provision requires 15 the Court to look closely at the reasonableness of the recovery and the 16 reasonableness of fees to confirm that Class Counsel haven’t negotiated a 17 benefit for themselves using the Class’s claims as leverage. Id. 18 That scrutiny doesn’t reveal evidence that Class Counsel bargained 19 away a class benefit in exchange for clear sailing on an unreasonably large 20 fee award. The Settlement’s benefit to the Class is appropriate in relation 21 to the likelihood of success at trial and the magnitude of the Class’s claims. 22 Class Counsel’s requested fees withstand close scrutiny, too. They seek 23 25% of the total—equal to the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark rate and less than 24 the maximum the clear sailing agreement allows without objection. These 25 fees are reasonable. And while the Court finds that the maximum fees 26 allowable under the clear sailing provisions would be too high, that 27 maximum amount isn’t so extraordinary that the Court can infer that Class 28 Counsel obtained the provision by bargaining away a class benefit. 1 Because it’s unlikely that the clear sailing agreement provided a non- 2 negligible benefit to Class Counsel, and because the Class’s benefit from 3 the Settlement is adequate, the Settlement withstands close scrutiny, and 4 the court finds no apparent collusion. 5 D. Response of the Class 6 The Class’s responses after full, fair, and effective notice (as 7 discussed below) favor final approval of the Settlement. At least 13,489 8 Class Members received notice. (See Dkt. 88 ¶¶ 3–5). None filed an 9 objection to the Settlement, and only four timely requested exclusion. 10 V. Notice 11 Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, KCI sent the Notice of 12 Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval 13 (“Class Notice”) to 14,082 Class Members by mail. Of these, 596 were 14 returned as undeliverable, after which KCC identified updated addresses 15 for 3 Class Members. KCC also sent emails to 11,625 Class Members. The 16 Class Notice informed Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their 17 right to receive a Settlement Share, their right to comment on or object to 18 the Settlement and/or the attorneys’ fees and costs, their right to elect not 19 to participate in the Settlement and pursue their own remedies, and their 20 right to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing and be 21 heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods of time were 22 provided by each of these procedures. 23 The notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class 24 Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed 25 decision regarding approval of the settlement based on the response of 26 Class Members. The Class Notice provided in this case was the best notice 27 28 1 practicable, satisfying the requirements of law and due process. 2 VI. Costs and Fees 3 The fees and expenses of KCC, LLC in administering the 4 Settlement, in the amount of $85,000, are fair and reasonable. The Court 5 herby grants final approval to and orders that the payment of that amount 6 be paid of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the Agreement. 7 The requested class representative service payments and attorneys’ 8 fees and costs are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby grants final 9 approval to and orders that the payment of $5,000 to each of the two 10 Plaintiffs for their class representative service payments, $349,392.50 for 11 attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel, and $10,127.83 for reimbursement of 12 costs be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the 13 Settlement. 14 VII. Release 15 Upon entry of final judgment, Class Members, including Plaintiffs, will 16 fully release and forever discharge Defendants and the Released Parties 17 of all claims that were or reasonably could have been alleged based on the 18 facts in the operative complaint which occurred during the Class Period, 19 including any claims related to background checks and any claims arising 20 under the FCRA, CCRAA, ICCRAA, and expressly excluding all other 21 claims, including claims for Labor Code violations, wrongful termination, 22 unemployment insurance, disability, social security, and workers’ 23 compensation, and claims outside of the Class Period (collectively, the 24 “Released Claims”). 25 Upon entry of final judgment, Plaintiffs will also fully and finally 26 release Defendants and the Released Parties from Plaintiffs’ Released 27 Claims, which include any and all claims, transactions, or occurrences 28 1 between them that occurred during the Class Period. 2 Nothing in this order shall preclude any action to enforce the Parties’ 3 obligations under the Settlement or under this order, including the 4 requirement that Defendant make payment in accordance with the 5 Agreement. 6 If, for any reason, the Effective Date (as defined by the Settlement) 7 does not occur, this Order will be vacated; the Parties will return their 8 respective positions in this action as those positions existed immediately 9 before the Parties executed the Agreement; and nothing stated in the 10 Agreement or any other papers filed with this Court in connection with the 11 Settlement will be deemed an admission of any kind by any of the Parties 12 or used as evidence against, or over the objection of, any of the Parties for 13 any purpose in this action or in any other action. 14 The Parties represent that they entered into the Settlement solely for 15 the purpose of compromising and settling disputed claims. Defendant 16 expressly denies any violation of law or any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs 17 and/or the Class, individually or collectively. 18 CONCLUSION 19 The Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and 20 provisions of the Settlement are ordered to be consummated. Participating 21 Class Members will be bound by the Settlement. The Parties are hereby 22 ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement. 23 The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and final judgment is 24 entered. Each side will bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as 25 provided by the Settlement and this Order. 26 The Parties have consented to the continued jurisdiction of United 27 States Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard or any Magistrate Judge who 28 / / / 1 || may later be assigned over all matters relating to the interpretation, 2 || administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this Order 3 || and the Settlement. 4 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17, 2022 lau At Soy 7 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 8 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AA