Filed: Dec. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 27) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor Code 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, California Business & Professions Code 17200, and for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Cod
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 27) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor Code 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, California Business & Professions Code 17200, and for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
(Doc. No. 27)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, California Business & Professions Code § 17200, and for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code § 2698. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, which Defendant did not oppose. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
On November 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she recommended that the Court deny the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the motion to address the issues and concerns identified therein. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial because the proposed class did not met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the proposed settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, when considering the overly-aggressive discounting of Plaintiff's claims, the overbreadth of the class release, the allocation of thirty-three percent of the class settlement amount as attorney's fees, the seemingly excessive incentive award to Plaintiff, and other issues.
The findings and recommendation were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days. No objections were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having reviewed the entire file de novo, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed November 15, 2019, be adopted in full. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
