Vallejo v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually Case No.: 20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG and on behalf of others similarly situated, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff,

13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware CLASS ACTION AND PAGA 15 limited liability company; and DOES 1 SETTLEMENT; and through 50, inclusive, 16 Defendants. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 18 (Doc. No. 88, 89) 19

20 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for final approval of class action 21 settlement and for attorney fees. (Doc. Nos. 88, 89.) Defendant Sterigenics U.S., LLC filed 22 a Notice of Non-Opposition to each motion, (Doc. Nos. 92, 93), and non-party Anthony 23 Freeman has filed an Opposition to the Motion for Final Approval, (Doc. No. 94). On 24 September 25, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion, at 25 which Plaintiff indicated that upon investigation, several former employees who believed 26 they were class members were inadvertently excluded. The Court granted additional time 27 for Plaintiff to investigate the matter and give the excluded class members time for notice 28 1 and objection. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted a supplemental declaration in 2 support of final approval. (Doc. No. 105.) The deadline to object to the Settlement was July 3 10, 2023 for the originally discovered class and November 13, 2023 for the newly 4 discovered class. The Court held a second hearing on Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion in 5 light of the Supplemental Briefing on December 4, 2023. For the reasons stated herein, the 6 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against 9 Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego which Defendant 10 removed to this Court on September 11, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, and 11 1446. (Doc. No. 1.) In his operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of himself 12 and other employees of Defendant for: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid meal period 13 premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums; (4) unpaid minimum wages; (5) final wages 14 not timely paid; (6) failure to reimburse expenses; (7) violation of California Business and 15 Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (“UCL”); (8) failure to provide accurate wage 16 statements; and (9) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), California 17 Labor Code § 2699. (Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”), Doc. No. 67.) 18 The operative complaint alleges that between January 2013 and January 2018, 19 Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid non-exempt Machine Operator. 20 (Id. ¶ 16.) During this time, Defendant allegedly “had the authority to hire and terminate 21 Plaintiff and the Class; to directly or indirectly control work rules, working conditions, 22 wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiff and the Class; and to hire 23 and terminate the employment of Plaintiff and the Class.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff asserts 24 Defendant “engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their 25 hourly-paid or non-exempt employees.” (Id. ¶ 20.) For example, Plaintiff states Defendant 26 regularly required Plaintiff and the purported class to work off the clock without 27 compensation, rounded employee time in a manner that was not neutral which advantaged 28 Defendant, and failed to adequately inform Plaintiff and the purported class of their right 1 to take meal and rest periods. (Id.) 2 On September 18, 2020, Defendant filed its first motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 3 Complaint and/or strike portions of the Complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) On October 8, 2020, 4 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the case back to San Diego County Superior Court. 5 (Doc. No. 9.) On June 29, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, 6 Defendant’s motion to strike, and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s 7 sixth cause of action for failure to provide accurate wage statements without leave to 8 amend, and granted as to the remaining causes of action with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 9 17.) 10 Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 11 and/or strike class action allegations on July 28, 2021. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court granted 12 the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike. (Doc. No. 26.) 13 Defendant filed its third motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in 14 November 2021, (Doc. No. 31), which the Court granted in part and denied in part in 15 December 2021, (Doc. No. 36). Specifically, Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for business 16 expense reimbursements was dismissed with leave to amend. 17 On September 26, 2022 and October 28, 2022, the Parties participated in two 18 Mandatory Settlement Conferences (“MSC”) with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Allison 19 H. Goddard. (Doc. No. 69-1 at 7.) Although the Parties did not resolve the action after the 20 first MSC, the Parties were able to reach a class-wide settlement during the second MSC. 21 (Id. at 8.) On October 28, 2022, Judge Goddard issued a Mediator’s Proposal to settle the 22 case on a class-wide basis. (Doc. No. 62.) On November 4, 2022, the Parties accepted the 23 Mediator’s Proposal, effectively settling the case. (Id.) 24 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Parties stipulated to grant Plaintiff leave 25 to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add two additional causes of action: (1) under the 26 California Labor Code § 226(a) (failure to provide accurate wage statements); and 27 (2) California Labor Code § 2699, et seq. (PAGA). (Doc. No. 69-1 at 8.) On December 20, 28 2022, Plaintiff provided notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency 1 (“LWDA”) of similar allegations against Defendant. (Id.) On December 21, 2022, the 2 Parties filed the Joint Stipulation re: Filing of Fourth Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff 3 filed his 4AC on December 29, 2022. (Id.) Defendant filed its Answer to the 4AC on 4 January 12, 2023. (Id.) Thereafter, the Parties filed a Motion to Grant Preliminary Approval 5 of Class Action and PAGA Settlement on January 13, 2023, (Doc. No. 69), which the Court 6 granted on April 20, 2023, (Doc. No. 87). The preliminary approval order established a 7 process for notice to the Class. (Doc. No. 87.) Notice was completed as ordered and one 8 Class Member has objected to the settlement. Thereafter, at the September 25, 2023 hearing 9 on final approval of class action settlement, Defendant informed the Court that it had 10 discovered possible additional class members who had inadvertently been excluded. Thus, 11 the Court gave the parties additional time to find the excluded class members and provide 12 a notice and objection period. Plaintiff thereafter filed supplemental briefing to provide the 13 Court with additional information as to the additional members. (See Doc. No. 105.) 14 On August 10, 2023, Anthony Freeman filed his opposition and objection to the 15 instant motion for final approval. (Doc. No. 94.) In addition to apparently being a member 16 of the Class in this case, Mr. Freeman is a plaintiff in another pending case against 17 Sterigenics in the Superior Court of San Bernardino. See Freeman v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC, 18 Case No. CIVSB2220535, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. 19 II. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 20 Plaintiff and Defendant have executed a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA 21 Settlement (“Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”). The primary terms of Settlement 22 are provided below: 23 • Defendant will pay One Million Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Dollars and 24 Fifteen Cents ($1,020,430.15) (the “New Gross Settlement Amount”),1 in addition 25

26 1 The escalator clause contained in Paragraph 41 of the Agreement was first triggered on or around May 27 11, 2023, increasing the New Gross Settlement Amount from $875,000.00 to 888,588.24. (Doc. No. 88-1 at 4 n.2 (citing Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez, Doc. No. 88-3, ¶ 15).) The escalator clause was 28 1 to the employer’s share of payroll taxes, to settle the Claims of Plaintiff and Class 2 Members consisting of individuals who are members of the class: 3 o All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant who 4 were employed by Defendant in the state of California (“Class Members”) at 5 any time between August 5, 2016 and ending on either the date of Preliminary 6 Approval of the Settlement by the Court or sixty-five (65) days from the date 7 of remediation, i.e. January 1, 2023, whichever date occurs earlier (the “Class 8 Period”). There are 349 class members and 286 Aggrieved Employees.2 9 • In addition to the Individual Settlement Payments to Participating Class Members, 10 the Gross Settlement Amount will be used to pay: 11 1. The Class Representative Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff ($7,500.00); 12 2. Class Counsel’s Fees ($306,129.04)3; 13 3. Class Counsel Costs for reimbursement of Class Counsel’s reasonable costs 14 and expenses associated with the litigation and settlement of the Action 15 ($4,994.00); 16 4. The PAGA award of $25,000.00, $18,750.00 of which will be paid to the 17 LWDA with the remaining $6,250.00 distributed among PAGA Members; 18 5. Settlement Administration Costs ($10,599.00); and 19 • After deducting the above fees and costs, the remaining balance available for 20 distribution (the Net Settlement Amount) shall be distributed to the Participating 21 Class Members. The Net Settlement Amount will be at approximately $651,202.10, 22 meaning the average Individual Settlement Payment to Participating Class Members 23 24 25 Members and their corresponding Workweeks had not been included. (Supplemental Declaration of 26 Heather Davis (“Supp. Davis Decl.”), Doc. No. 105, ¶ 12.) 2 One Aggrieved Employee submitted a Request for Exclusion and Objected to the PAGA Settlement. (Id. 27 at 4.) 3 Class Counsel’s requested fees have increased from the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 28 1 (assuming 348 Participating Class Members) is estimated to be $1,811.73. Based on 2 these calculations, the Aggrieved Employees will receive an estimated average gross 3 payment of $19.53. 4 • Upon the complete funding of the Gross Settlement Amount and all applicable 5 employer-side payroll taxes, upon final approval Plaintiff, Participating Class 6 Members, PAGA Members, the State of California, and the LWDA release the 7 Released Parties from each of the Class Members’ Released Class Claims and 8 Released PAGA Claims defined in the Settlement Agreement. 9 (See Doc. Nos. 69-2, Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; 88-1; Supp. 10 Davis Decl.) 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A class action may not be settled without court approval, “which may be granted 13 only after a fairness hearing and a determination that the settlement taken as a whole is fair, 14 reasonable, and adequate.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 15 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a 16 “strong judicial policy” in support of class action settlements. Class Plaintiffs v. City of 17 Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). However, when presented with a motion to 18 finally approve a class action settlement, “judges have the responsibility of ensuring 19 fairness to all members of the class . . . .” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 20 2003). 21 IV. OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT 22 Mr. Freeman raises an objection to the proposed settlement, specifically that Plaintiff 23 Vallejo lacks standing to release PAGA claims for the PAGA period that began on August 24 5, 2019, and that the PAGA Settlement is deficient. (Doc. No. 94 at 2.) Moreover, Mr. 25 Freeman opts out of the class portion of the Settlement through his request for exclusion 26 and preserves his right to bring separate individual Labor Code claims. (Doc. No. 94-1 at 27 16.) 28 /// 1 However, as previously discussed on the Court’s April 12, 2023 Order denying Mr. 2 Freeman’s motion to intervene, Mr. Freeman conflates the statute of limitations with 3 Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement for standing. (See Doc. No. 86 at 11.) As the Court 4 previously stated: 5 Plaintiff’s wage statement claim was dismissed due to Defendant’s statute of 6 limitations defense. California Labor Code § 226’s one-year statute of limitations has no effect on Article III standing or jurisdiction. See Cal. Civ. 7 Proc. Code § 340(a) (providing a one-year statute of limitations for “[a]n 8 action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, if the action is given to an individual, or to an individual and the state, except if the statute imposing it 9 prescribes a different limitation.”). Indeed, it is well settled that “[s]tatutes of 10 limitations and other filing deadlines ‘ordinarily are not jurisdictional.’” Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 246 (2016) (quoting Sebelius v. 11 Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145, 154 (2013)). “In civil cases, the statute 12 of limitations is not jurisdictional but merely serves a procedural function and constitutes an affirmative defense that is waived unless pleaded and proved.” 13 Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Mgmt., LLC, 69 Cal. App. 5th 521, 541 (2021). 14 Thus, the defendant has the discretion to waive its statute of limitations defense. Id. at 542. In the Parties’ proposed settlement agreement, Defendant 15 specifically states it “will not object to Plaintiff’s standing to assert [the Wage 16 Statement and PAGA] claims.” (Doc. No. 69-2 at 31.) The Court therefore finds Plaintiff does not lack standing and is not time-barred in bringing these 17 claims. 18 (Id. at 11–12.) For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has standing to release 19 PAGA claims for the PAGA period. 20 Mr. Freeman further argues the PAGA Settlement is deficient as it only allocates 21 $25,000 to the PAGA claims. (Doc. No. 94-1 at 15.) However, “PAGA expressly requires 22 notice of a proposed settlement to both the LWDA and the trial court, and directs the court 23 to review the settlement prior to approval.” Turrieta v. Lyft, 69 Cal. App. 5th 955, 972 24 (2021). These procedures were followed here, and just as in Turrieta, the LWDA did not 25 provide comments on nor objections to the proposed settlement as it has done in other 26 cases. See id. at 972–73 (citing O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1113 27 (N.D. Cal. 2016).) As such, Mr. Freeman’s objection is OVERRULED. 28 /// 1 V. MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 2 A. Class Certification 3 Before granting final approval of a class action settlement agreement, the Court must 4 first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 5 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (indicating that a district court must apply “undiluted, even 6 heightened, attention [to class certification] in the settlement context” in order to protect 7 absentees). In the present case, the Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion for 8 conditional class certification. (Doc. No. 87.) Accordingly, the Court reaffirms and 9 incorporates by reference its prior analysis under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) as set forth in its 10 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Class Certification. (See id. at 6–10.) 11 B. Adequacy of Notice 12 Next, the Court must determine whether the Class received adequate notice. Hanlon 13 v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by 14 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). “Adequate notice is critical to court 15 approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).” Id. 16 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the Parties’ 17 proposed notice and notice plan. (See Doc. No. 87 at 16–17.) As part of their Final 18 Approval Motion, Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez, who is “a Case 19 Manager for ILYM Group, Inc., . . . the professional settlement services provider who has 20 been retained by the Parties’ Counsel and subsequently appointed by the Court to serve as 21 the Settlement Administrator for [the instant case].” (Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez 22 (“Hernandez Decl.”), Doc. No. 88-3, ¶ 1.) In her declaration, Ms. Hernandez details the 23 actions taken by ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM Group”) to provide notice in accordance with 24 the Preliminary Approval Order. (Id. ¶¶ 3–10.) Ms. Hernandez further details the actions 25 taken by ILYM Group in providing notice to the 29 additional class members. 26 (Supplemental Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez, Doc. No. 105-1, ¶¶ 14–18.) Having 27 reviewed Ms. Hernandez’s declarations, the Court finds the Settlement Class received 28 adequate notice of the Settlement. 1 C. Fairness of the Settlement 2 The Court must next determine whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, 3 and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(C), while considering 4 the fairness factors. 5 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court addressed each of the fairness factors 6 in turn and found all the pertinent factors weighed in favor of approving the Settlement. 7 (See Doc. No. 87 at 10–16.) Among other criteria, the payment of the $1,020,430.15 as a 8 settlement payment to settle and resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf of the 348 9 Class Members against Defendant is a fair, reasonable, and appropriate settlement amount 10 to resolve all claims in this action. One Class Member, Anthony Freeman, has filed a 11 request for exclusion and an objection against the settlement. (Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 11–13.) 12 Because no pertinent facts have changed, the Court reaffirms and incorporates by reference 13 its analysis of the Rule 23(e) requirements as set forth in its Preliminary Approval Order. 14 (See Doc. No. 87 at 10–16.) Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement to be “fair, 15 reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). 16 VI. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 17 A. Attorneys’ Fees 18 “In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and 19 nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 23(h). However, “courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the 21 settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.” In re 22 Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. “Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit 23 of the entire class, courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the 24 percentage-of-recovery method.” Id. at 942; see Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 25 480, 504 (2016) (“The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the 26 discretion of the trial court, the goal under either the percentage or lodestar approach being 27 the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts.”). Irrespective of 28 which methodology a court uses, the court cannot apply it mechanically or formulaically, 1 but must ensure that the fee award is reasonable. In re Mercury Interactive Sec. Litig., 618 2 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010); Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 Under the percentage-of-recovery method, the benchmark for a reasonable fee award 4 is 25% of the common fund. Id. However, a district court “may adjust the benchmark when 5 special circumstances indicate a higher or lower percentage would be appropriate.” In re 6 Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers 7 v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider all 8 the circumstances of the case to determine an appropriate rate, including the results 9 achieved, the risk counsel took in pursuing the case, incidental or non-monetary benefits 10 of the litigation, and the time and money counsel expended on the case. Vizcaino v. 11 Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048–50 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Here, Class Counsel request attorneys’ fees of $306,129.04, or 30% of 13 $1,020,430.15 from the proposed settlement. (Doc. No. 89-1 at 4; Supp. Davis Decl. ¶ 13.) 14 This amount exceeds the benchmark rate of 25%, the lodestar amount, which is 15 approximately $255,107.53, resulting in a 1.30 positive multiplier. (Doc. No. 89-1 at 12.) 16 Counsel asserts this does not include any time spent on this fee motion or any hours that 17 were “written off.” (Declaration of Heather M. Davis, Doc. No. 89-2, ¶ 34.) Counsel 18 contends they have prepared multiple complaints, extensively analyzed significant date 19 including a sampling of Class Members’ pay and other records, and obtained an order 20 granting class certification following extensive discovery, justifying the increase from the 21 benchmark percentage rate. (Id. at 5–6.) Courts in this Circuit have routinely authorized 22 similar awards. See, e.g., Ripee v. Bos. Mkt. Corp., No. 05cv1359 BTM (JMA), 2006 WL 23 8455400, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006) (award of 40% of $3,750,000 wage and hour class 24 action settlement); Stuart v. RadioShack Corp., No. C-07-4499-EMC, 2010 WL 3155645, 25 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010) (finding 33% fee award “well within the range of 26 percentages which courts have upheld as reasonable in other class action lawsuits”). As 27 such, the Court finds the requested amount of attorneys’ fees reasonable and approves the 28 award in the amount of $306,129.04. 1 B. Litigation Expenses 2 In their motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of $4,994.00 in litigation costs. (Doc. No. 3 89-1 at 4.) Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement of the out-of-pocket costs they 4 reasonably incurred investigating and prosecuting this case. See Staton, 327 F.3d at 974. 5 As of July 27, 2023, Protection Law Group, LLP incurred $4,994.35 in costs. (Doc. No. 6 89-1 at 14.) No Class Member has objected to the request for reimbursement of $4,994.00 7 in costs. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s out-of-pocket costs were reasonably incurred 8 in connection with the prosecution of this litigation, were advanced by Class Counsel for 9 the benefit of the Class, and shall be reimbursed in full in the amount requested. The Court 10 approves the request for litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $4,994.00. 11 C. Administrative Costs 12 Plaintiff requests the Court to award $10,599.00 to ILYM Group, Inc., the appointed 13 Settlement Administrator, from the Total Settlement Fund of $1,020,430.15. (Doc. No. 88- 14 1 at 21; Supp. Davis Decl. ¶ 13.) In this settlement, ILYM Group took steps to implement 15 notice of the settlements, including: 16 (a) printing and mailing the Notice of Proposed Class Action And PAGA 17 Settlement . . . ; (b) receiving and processing requests for exclusion; (c) resolving Settlement Class Members’ disputes over the number of workweeks 18 Defendants have record of them working during the Class Period, . . . ; (d) 19 calculating individual settlement award amounts; (e) processing and mailing settlement award checks; (f) handling tax withholdings as required by the 20 Settlement and the law; (g) preparing, issuing and filing tax returns and other 21 applicable tax forms; (h) handling the distribution of any unclaimed funds pursuant to the terms of the Settlement; and (i) performing other tasks as the 22 Parties mutually agree to and/or the Court orders ILYM Group to perform. 23 (Hernandez Decl. ¶ 3.) Courts regularly award administrative costs associated with 24 providing notice to the class. See Vasquez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 3:16-cv-2749- 25 WQH-BLM, 2020 WL 1550234, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020) (awarding $50,000 for 26 administrative costs). The Court concludes ILYM Group’s costs were reasonably incurred 27 for the benefit of the Class. The Court approves Class Counsel’s request for administrative 28 1 costs in the amount of $10,599.00. 2 D. Incentive Awards to Class Plaintiff 3 Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides the Class Representative will receive a 4 total of $7,500.00 to be paid from the Total Settlement Fund of $1,020,430.15. (Doc. No. 5 88-1 at 19; Supp. Davis Decl. ¶ 13.) 6 “[I]ncentive awards that are intended to compensate class representatives for work 7 undertaken on behalf of a class are fairly typical in class actions cases” and “do not, by 8 themselves, create an impermissible conflict between class members and their 9 representatives.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 10 2015) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Named plaintiffs in class action litigation 11 are eligible for reasonable incentive payments. Staton, 327 F.3d at 977. The incentive 12 award for the Class Plaintiff in this case is presumptively reasonable. See, e.g., Lloyd v. 13 Navy Fed. Credit Union, No. 17-cv-1280-BAS-RBB, 2019 WL 2269958, at * (S.D. Cal. 14 May 28, 2019) (awarding a service award of $5,000 to each Class Representative); 15 Vasquez, 2020 WL 1550234, at *9 (finding reasonable incentive awards of $7,500 and 16 $3,000). Accordingly, the Court finds the service award to the Class Representative is 17 appropriate. 18 VII. CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing and the entire record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff and Class 20 Counsel’s motion for final approval of the Settlement. The Court further ORDERS: 21 1. Defendant Sterigenics U.S., LLC, to pay the Settlement Amount of $1,020,430.15 22 and all applicable employer-side payroll taxes as a no reversionary settlement 23 payment to settle and resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf of the 348 Class 24 Members against Defendant. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Effective 25 Date of the Settlement, as defined in the Agreement, Defendant will deposit the New 26 Gross Settlement Amount into a Qualified Settlement Fund to be established by 27 ILYM Group, Inc. In accordance with future orders of this Court, the Settlement 28 Amount will only be used to pay: the claim shares to the 348 Class Members; the 1 PAGA Payment; the settlement claims administrator; the awarded service fee; and 2 attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the action. 3 2. As soon as practicable after receipt of the $1,020,430.15, and within fourteen 4 calendar days, ILYM Group must distribute all of the $1,020,430.15, by paying 5 Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs as stated above; distributing checks for the 6 service awards as stated above; withdrawing its administrative costs as stated above; 7 and distributing the balance of the money equally among the 348 Class Members as 8 indicated in the Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez supporting Plaintiff’s Motion for 9 Final Approval, ¶ 15, including as provided by Section 65 of the settlement 10 agreement: 11 If a Participating Class Member or PAGA Member does not cash his or her Individual Settlement Payment check and/or PAGA Payment 12 check within 180 days, the uncashed funds, subject to Court approval, 13 shall be distributed to the Controller of the State of California to be held pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law, California Civil Code § 14 1500, et. seq. for the benefit of those Participating Class Members and 15 PAGA Members who did not cash their checks until such time that they claim their property. The Parties agree that this disposition results 16 in no “unpaid residue” under California Civil Procedure Code § 384, 17 as the entire Net Settlement Amount will be paid out to Participating Class Members and PAGA Members, whether or not they all cash their 18 Individual Settlement Payment check or PAGA payment checks. 19 3. In exchange for the Settlement Amount, Sterigenics U.S., LLC is also dismissed 20 with prejudice. The releases by the Class Members afforded Defendant is strictly 21 limited to the claims in the action (and California Civil Code Section 1542) in 22 Sections 70, 71, and 72 of the Settlement Agreement, which provide that upon the 23 Final Effective Date, in and for the valuable consideration as provided in the 24 Settlement Agreement, each of the 348 Class Members agree that they forever 25 discharge, waive, and release Defendant from any and all claims, demands, 26 obligations, actions, causes of action, damages, whether based in tort, contract, 27 statute, or otherwise, arising from the 4AC, to include the 4AC and all Counts and 28 all forms of relief sought by the 348 Class Members through the 4AC against l Defendant, that arose within the Class Period certified by the Court. 2 4. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Action and all Released Claims. 3 These dismissals are without costs to any party, except as specifically provided in 4 the Agreement. The Settlement shall be binding on, and have res judicata and 5 preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained 6 by or on behalf of the Plaintiff, Settlement Class Members, and Releasing Parties. 7 5. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order, the Court RETAINS 8 JURISDICTION over: (a) implementation and enforcement of the Agreement 9 pursuant to further order of the Court until the final judgment contemplated hereby 10 has become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the Parties 11 shall have been performed pursuant to the Agreement; (b) any other action necessary 12 to conclude this Settlement and to implement the terms of the Agreement; and (c) the 13 construction and interpretation of the Agreement. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: December 5, 2023 © 18 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14