Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00330/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00330-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDALIA RODRIGUEZ and JUAN

ALCALA, on behalf of themselves and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11cv330-MMA (POR)

vs. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT

AWARD & DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT

OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

WESTERN MESQUITE MINES, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Medalia Rodriguez and Juan Alcala filed this class action against their former

employers, Defendants Western Mesquite Mines, Inc. and New Gold, Inc., alleging various

violations of California’s Labor Code. Plaintiffs represent a class including current and former nonexempt hourly employees of Defendants. On September 30, 2011, the parties filed a joint motion

for preliminary approval of a settlement of this action, which the Court granted on November 15,

2011. See Doc. Nos. 23, 25. On April 2, 2012, the Court entered final approval of the settlement

and granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for attorneys fees and costs. See Doc. Nos. 34, 35. The

sole issue remaining before the Court for resolution is whether Plaintiffs should receive a class

representative enhancement award of $5000 each. 

///

/// 

- 1 - 11cv330

Case 3:11-cv-00330-MMA-POR Document 37 Filed 04/06/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request an enhancement award in the amount of $5000 each, as commemorated in

the Stipulation of Settlement and Release signed by all parties on September 30, 2011. See Doc. No.

23-2. Defendants agreed to this award, and did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the

award. See Doc. No. 27. 

After assessing the reasonableness of the proposed enhancement award under the factors set

forth in Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995), the Court

tentatively ruled that Plaintiffs are deserving of the award based on its finding that they were

actively involved in the preparation and prosecution of this litigation.1

 For example, they

participated in the discovery process by providing information and documents to their counsel, met

with counsel to review documents and discuss the status of the litigation, participated in the private

mediation of this action; provided deposition testimony, and prepared declarations. Both Plaintiffs

appear to have taken the responsibility of being class representatives seriously, and each diligently

pursued his/her claims against Defendants on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly

situated. No class member opposed the enhancement award, and the award is modest. 

During the March 19, 2012 hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement, Defendants

asked the Court to reconsider its tentative ruling regarding the propriety of a $5000 enhancement

award for each Plaintiff. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs have refused to release all claims

against Defendants arising out of their previous employment, and instead both have brought separate

actions against Defendants on employment claims arising out of their terminations that pre-date this

litigation and the parties’ related settlement agreements. As a result, Defendants request that the

Court order Plaintiffs to comply with the terms of the settlement requiring that Plaintiffs release

Defendants from those claims and take the necessary actions to dismiss the other lawsuits. 

1

 A number of district courts in the Ninth Circuit have adopted the five-factor test set forth in

Van Vranken, 901 F. Supp. at 299, which analyzes: (1) the risk to the class representative in

commencing a class action, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties

encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class

representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit, or lack thereof, enjoyed

by the class representative as a result of the litigation. See, e.g., Carter v. Anderson Merchs., LP, 2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55629, 14-15 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67731, 19 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2010). 

- 2 - 11cv330

Case 3:11-cv-00330-MMA-POR Document 37 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Alternatively, Defendants urge the Court to reduce Plaintiffs’ enhancement award by an appropriate

amount. 

Pursuant to paragraph 17 of the final approval order, “the Court retains jurisdiction of all

matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement

of this order and the Settlement.” See Doc. No. 35; see also Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th

Cir. 1987) (“It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an

agreement to settle a case pending before it.”). To be enforceable, a settlement must meet two

requirements. First, it must be a complete agreement. Callie, 829 F.2d at 890-91. Second, both

parties must have either agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel

to settle the dispute. Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 1977). The

settlement agreement in this case meets both requirements. Upon breach of a settlement agreement,

the Court may award damages or compel specific performance, as appropriate. TNT Marketing, Inc.

v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986), citing Village of Kaktovik v. Watt, 689 F.2d 222, 230,

223 U.S. App. D.C. 39 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 

The September 30, 2011 Stipulation of Settlement and Release speaks for itself, and provides

in pertinent part:

As a condition of receipt of the service payment [i.e., enhancement award], each of the

Plaintiffs shall execute a general release of all known and unknown claims she/he may

have against Defendant and its parents, subsidiaries and affiliated corporations, and the

predecessors and successors and all current and former directors, officers and

employees of all such entities, based on her/his employment with the Defendant. 

See Stipulation ¶ 11(f). These terms are not unusual. Enhancement awards often are premised in

part on class representatives agreeing to a general release of their claims against the defendant. See,

e.g., Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emple. Mgmt., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69799, at 23-24 (C.D. Cal. June

15, 2010) (approving enhancement award for class representative where “the full general release of

her claims . . . is ‘much broader’ than the Class Members’ ‘Released Claims’ in the Settlement”);

Ortiz v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13009, 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2012)

(approving enhancement award for class representatives who agreed to release all their claims

against Home Depot in a broader release than the release for the class); Brooks v. Williams Tank

Lines, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51982, 26 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) (preliminarily approving

- 3 - 11cv330

Case 3:11-cv-00330-MMA-POR Document 37 Filed 04/06/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enhancement award for class representative where he “signed a broader release than the one

applicable to all other class members.”). By refusing to execute a “general release of all known and

unknown claims” against Defendants “based on her/his employment with the Defendant,” and

actively pursuing such claims against Defendants via separate litigation, Plaintiffs have failed to

perform a “condition of receipt” of the enhancement award. 

Plaintiffs assert that the enhancement award “is not conditioned upon the Class

Representatives signing separate releases.”2

 See Pl’s Supp. Brief, 2. Yet the terms stated above in

paragraph 11(f) of the Stipulation are plain, clear, and unambiguous. Furthermore, the Stipulation

makes clear that the amount of the enhancement award would be set at the Court’s discretion – not

the actual receipt of the award. See Stipulation ¶ 11(f). The parties chose to contract the terms upon

which receipt of the award would be based. Thus, Plaintiffs’ contention that “the decision as to

whether, or not, to award incentive fees to the Class Representatives the fees lies entirely within the

discretion of this court” is without merit. See Pl’s Supp. Brief, at 2. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that a $5000 enhancement award for Plaintiffs

is reasonable in this case. However, Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the terms of the September 30,

2011 Stipulation of Settlement and Release, which has now been approved and finalized by the

Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to receipt of a $5000 enhancement award upon the

execution of a general release of claims as set forth in paragraph 11(f) of the September 30, 2011

Stipulation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 6, 2012 ___________________________________________

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO

United States District Judge 

2

 The Court notes that while Plaintiffs cite multiple documents in their supplemental brief to

support this position, including the July 2011 Memorandum of Agreement and various court filings, they

fail to cite, or even acknowledge, paragraph 11(f) of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release. In

addition, the email exchange between counsel quoted at length by Plaintiffs is inapposite to the current

dispute, as the exchange concerned paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Stipulation, dealing with the release of

claims by the Class Members. Paragraph 11(f), by contrast, provides for the release of claims by the

Class Representatives/Plaintiffs. 

- 4 - 11cv330

Case 3:11-cv-00330-MMA-POR Document 37 Filed 04/06/12 Page 4 of 4