Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mejia v. Sodexo, Inc., 16-cv-02120-LEK. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180309b90 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER: (1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (2) CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, CLASS COUNSEL, AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR; (4) APPROVING CLASS NOTICE PACKET; AND (5) SETTING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI , District Judge . On March 5, 2018, a hearing was held on the joint motion of plaintiffs Maria Benavides, Elvira Mungia Lopez, Maria Luisa Mejia, and Martin Monter and defendants Sodexo, Inc.
More

ORDER:

(1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;

(2) CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS;

(3) APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, CLASS COUNSEL, AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR;

(4) APPROVING CLASS NOTICE PACKET; AND

(5) SETTING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

On March 5, 2018, a hearing was held on the joint motion of plaintiffs Maria Benavides, Elvira Mungia Lopez, Maria Luisa Mejia, and Martin Monter and defendants Sodexo, Inc., and SDH Services West, LLC (collectively in the singular, "Sodexo"), for conditional certification of a settlement class in this action, preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement; approval of the Class Notice Packet, appointing Class Representatives, Class Counsel and the proposed Settlement Administrator, and the setting of a date for the hearing on final approval of the settlement. Stan S. Mallison and Joseph D. Sutton of Mallison & Martinez appeared for plaintiffs; and Jeffrey D. Wohl and Jullie Z. Lal of Paul Hastings LLP appeared for Sodexo.

The Court having read and considered the papers on the motion, the arguments of counsel, and the law; and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The proposed class is conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) as plaintiffs, for purposes of settlement only, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements for certification under one of the subsections of Rule 23(b), including that:

a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; b) There are questions of law and fact common to the class; c) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and d) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

2. The parties' Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement" or the "Agreement") is granted preliminary approval as it meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. The Settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, and appears to be the product of arm's length and informed negotiations and to treat all Class Members fairly.

3. The parties' proposed notice plan is constitutionally sound because individual notices will be mailed to all Class Members whose identities are known to the parties, and such notice is the best notice practicable. The parties' proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval (the "Class Notice") (Settlement, Exh. B), and proposed forms of Claim Form and Election Not to Participate in Settlement (id., Exhs. C, D) are sufficient to inform Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the Settlement, their rights to object to or comment on the settlement, their right to receive a Settlement Share or elect not to participate in the Settlement, and the processes for doing so, and the date and location of the final approval hearing and are therefore approved.

4. The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter:

All non-exempt employees employed by a Sodexo Employer in the State of California at the Metro Park Laundry facility in Stockton, California, in the plant operations and engineering departments, from September 6, 2012, through the date on which Metro Park Laundry ceased operations. The Class does not include any individuals who already have resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication.

5. Class Members will receive a Settlement Share if, not later than 45 days after the mailing of the Class Notice, they submit a completed and timely Claim Form and unless they submit a valid and timely Election Not to Participate in Settlement.

6. Any Class Member who elects not to participate in the Settlement has until 45 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to submit his or her Election Not to Participate in Settlement pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice.

7. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement has until 45 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to mail to the Clerk of Court and counsel for the parties his or her written objection (and, if he or she wishes to appear at the final approval hearing, to indicate in his or her written objection an intention to appear), pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice.

8. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the requests for the Class Representative Payment or the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment has until 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing to file with the Clerk of Court and serve on counsel for the parties his or her written objection (and, if he or she wishes to appear at the final approval hearing, to indicate in his or her written objection an intention to appear), pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice.

9. Simpluris is appointed to act as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement.

10. Plaintiffs Maria Benavides, Elvira Mungia Lopez, Maria Luisa Mejia, and Martin Monter are appointed the Class Representatives. Stan S. Mallison, Hector R. Martinez and Eric S. Trabucco of Mallison & Martinez are appointed Class Counsel.

11. The Class Notice will be disseminated according to the notice plan described in the Settlement Agreement and substantially in the form submitted by the parties. Proof of distribution of the Class Notice will be filed by the parties in conjunction with the motion for an order granting final approval of the Settlement.

12. Sodexo is directed to provide to the Settlement Administrator not later than 10 days after the date of this order the Class Members' Data as specified by the Settlement Agreement.

13. The Settlement Administrator is directed to mail the approved Class Notice, Claim Form, and Election Not to Participate in Settlement (the "Notice Packet"), translated in English, Spanish, Tagalog, and Punjabi, by first-class mail to the Class Members not later than 7 days after receipt of the Class Members' Data.

14. A final approval hearing will be held on July 9, 2018, at 9:45 a.m. (Hawaii time), to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class Members. The Court will hear all evidence and argument necessary to evaluate the Settlement, and will consider plaintiffs and Class Counsel's request, made by separate motion, for the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose the Settlement and the motion for awards of the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment, if they so desire, as set forth in the Class Notice.

15. The Court reserves the right to continue the date of the final approval hearing without further notice to Class Members. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or in connection with the Settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer