Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00352/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00352-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

NEAL PATAKY, JESSICA CLEEK, and 

LAUREN MICHELSON, individually, 

and on behalf of others similarly situated,,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BRIGANTINE, INC., a California 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS 

SETTLEMENT

[DKT. NO. 78]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of 

Settlement. Dkt. No. 78. On May 25, 2018, this Court held a hearing on this motion and 

requested that plaintiff file supplemental briefing regarding its concerns on publication 

notice and the overall reach percentage of the class. Dkt. No. 82. On June 15, 2018, 

Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Timothy G. Williams in response to the Court’s 

concerns. Dkt. No. 83. Williams asserted that the proposed class administrator informed 

him that current mailing addresses could be obtained for all class members through the 

use of the former employee’s social security number, which Brigantine had been required 

to obtain and retain under state and federal law. Id. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

that the settlement now provides adequate reach and notice to the class. Consequently, 

having considered the briefing, the argument of counsel, and counsel’s supplemental 

declaration the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of 

Settlement. Dkt. No. 83. 

This case is involves a wage-and-hour class action. On February 22, 2017, 

Plaintiffs Neal Pataky, Jessica Cleek, and Lauren Michelson filed a Complaint alleging 

that they and other servers were paid tips from Brigantine’s customers, but that 

Brigantine imposed a mandatory “tip pooling” policy in all restaurants dating back a 

decade, requiring servers to “tip out” to other employees, including those that did not 

provide direct table service in violation of Federal and California law. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 

8. 

The Brigantine Corporation, Inc. (“Defendant”) owns at least a dozen restaurants 

throughout San Diego County, including Brigantine Seafood and Miguel’s Cocina, each 

of which have multiple locations. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 6. Defendant currently has over 

1,000 team members. Id. Between 2005-2016, Brigantine employed Neal Pataky in 

various roles including dining room server, bartender, and as a member of the wait staff. 

Brigantine employed Plaintiff Jessica Cleek and Lauren Michelson as a cocktail server 

and wait staff member between 2013-2016. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) prohibition against forcing employees to 

share tips with employees who do not provide direct table service to customers in places 

where the kitchen staff does not customarily and regularly receive tips. Oregon 

Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs 

further allege that this violation is a predicate violation of the California Business & 

Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. (“Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

On March 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order under 29 U.S.C. 

section 216(b) to “conditionally certify” an FLSA Collective Class Action. Dkt. No. 12. 

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the FLSA class as to:

All current or former employees of The Brigantine, Inc. who have worked 

on and after February 22, 2014 as “servers” including but not limited to 

under job titles of food servers, cocktail lounge servers, dining room servers, 

and bartenders. Notices were sent to over 900 potential class members and 

over 120 individuals joined the FLSA case. 

Reynolds Decl. ¶ 10. Notices were sent to over 900 potential class members in 2017 and 

to date over 120 individuals joined the FLSA case as FLSA class members. Id. 

Following that Order, Plaintiffs were preparing to file a class certification motion for the 

FRCP Rule 23 opt out class when this settlement was obtained. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 11. 

A. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT1

Plaintiffs and Defendants negotiated a proposed settlement that will benefit 

approximately 800 Settlement Class members with monetary payments wherein 

Defendant will pay $550,000 without refund or reversion to the Settlement Class. 

The Settlement Agreement contemplates that Defendant will pay certain 

compensation to settle the claims of Plaintiffs and all other servers within the class period 

and includes (1) all members of the FLSA Collective Action who have filed Consent to 

Join forms and (2) all other servers within the scope of the potential Rule 23 Class Action 

defined as:

All current or former employees of The Brigantine, Inc. who have worked 

anytime between February 22, 2013 and April 30, 2017 as “servers,” 

including but not limited to under job titles of food servers, cocktail lounge 

servers, dining room servers, and bartenders. 

The Monetary Compensation consists of $550,000 without refund or reversion. 

The Settlement Amount is inclusive and in satisfaction of all requests for relief and 

 

1 A copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephanie 

Reynolds. Dkt. No. 78-2 at 9. 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

payments to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class arising from and related to this case 

including all claims for damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, etc. Ex. 1 at 14. 

B. LEGAL STANDARD FOR COURT APPROVAL

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong” judicial policy favoring the settlement of 

class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The policy of the federal courts is to encourage settlement before trial. Franklin v. 

Kaypro Corp., 884 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(e) first “require[s] the district court to determine whether a proposed settlement is 

fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 

F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th 

Cir. 1998)). To grant preliminary approval of a class action settlement, a court need only 

find that the settlement is within “the range of reasonableness” to justify publishing and 

sending notice of the settlement to class members and the scheduling of a final approval 

hearing. In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d. 1078, 1079-80 (N.D. Cal. 

2007). Because class members will subsequently receive notice and have an opportunity 

to be heard on the settlement, this Court need not review the settlement in detail at this 

juncture. In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118-BTM JMA, 2009 WL 

995864, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009). 

After review of the proposed settlement, the Court determines that there is 

adequate reason to provide notice to class members of the proposed settlement and to 

schedule a fairness hearing. 

1. Fairness Determination

The Court must make a determination of whether the class-action settlement is 

“fair, reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(C). “It is the settlement taken 

as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall 

fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. The Court evaluates whether “(1) the proposed 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) 

has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class 

representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible 

approval. Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, No. 08-cv-318-CAB-BLM, 2014 WL 

12515159, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2014). 

Result of Non-Collusive Negotiations

A settlement is presumed to be fair if reached in arms-length negotiations after 

relevant discovery has taken place. Cohorst v. BRE Prop., Inc., 2011 WL 7061923, *12 

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) (citing In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 1166, 

1171 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Here, the settlement resulted after Defendant produced discovery 

responses and class data relating to wage and hour issues. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 12. The 

parties reached a settlement after extensive negotiations with the assistance of the 

Honorable Magistrate Judge Schopler’s “mediator’s proposal.” Id. ¶ 12. In particular, the 

Court takes note that the parties entered into the agreement only after a second Early 

Neutral Evaluation. See Reynolds Decl. ¶ 12. Consequently, this factor weighs strongly 

in favor of approval. 

No Obvious Deficiencies

The Court concludes that there are no obvious deficiencies to the settlement 

finding that the settlement appears to offer Settlement Class members a substantial 

portion of the tip income they were deprived of during their employment. The settlement 

appears to be a compromise between the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s case. 

Plaintiffs alleged that Brigantine faced possible liability between $500,000 to $520,000 in 

the case, as well as Attorneys’ fees and costs that are recoverable under the FLSA. 

Plaintiffs, however, faced significant risk including a pending petition for a writ of 

certiorari before the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Oregon 

Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 843 F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

Department of Labor has indicated that it may revisit the tip pool issue at the core of this 

case. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ also assert that the issue of whether plaintiffs’ claims must 

be subject to arbitration remains unsettled. These uncertainties create risk for plaintiffs 

which weighs in favor of preliminary approval of this settlement. 

Fairness to All Class Members

The proposed settlement does not appear to provide preferential treatment to 

Plaintiffs or any segment of the Settlement Class. Defendant has provided Plaintiffs’ 

counsel with a spreadsheet that it contends shows all tips its managers collected from 

servers and re-distributed to kitchen staff from January 1, 2013 through April 30, 2017 

totaling $529,956.34.2 Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13. Defendant has also provided Plaintiffs’ 

counsel with spreadsheet data that includes all tip money reported by each individual 

server within the class period. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 14. With this information which 

includes each individual server’s reported tip total and the fact that servers’ tips to 

kitchen staff were similar in percentage across Brigantine restaurants, each server can be 

assigned a pro rata “claim share” of the settlement fund. Id. Plaintiff asserts that this is 

the fairest method to determine claim shares because it is based on actual tip income 

reported and tip data available from Defendant. Id.

The Court concludes that the Settlement would be fair to all proposed class 

members and would not provide preferential treatment to any particular class members. 

Upon review and after hearing further about the calculation process at oral argument, it is 

apparent that all settlement Class members will be afforded with payments of tips in 

proportion to the amount of money reported and will receive payments representative of 

the differing amount of tips earned during their respective employment. 

As such, the Court concludes that the Settlement would be fair to all proposed class 

 

2 The parties agree that this amount is overinclusive as it includes tips from January 1, 2013 to February 

21, 2013 which precedes the Class Period. 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

members. 

2. Class Certification

Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must determine whether the 

proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). 

The parties’ settlement agreement complies with these requirements. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) establishes four prerequisites for class certification: (1) 

numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a). 

Numerosity is satisfied if the “class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Here, numerosity is established by the fact that 

nearly 800 Settlement Class Members have been identified by Defendant. 

Commonality is satisfied if “there are any questions of fact or law common to the 

class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality involves whether plaintiffs can show a 

common contention such that “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue 

that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011). Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated 

commonality by showing that Defendant applies common operations, policies, and 

procedures in its restaurants. Defendant distributes identical forms to employees of all 

restaurants to review and execute. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 15. Moreover, the nature of the 

work is similar in that “servers” as defined in the class have the responsibility of serving 

customers food and beverages. Further, Defendants’ tip pooling policy for servers was 

similar or identical for each of its restaurants. Reynolds Decl. ¶ 16. Accordingly, 

commonality is satisfied as the Settlement class members each suffered the same injuries 

and share similar questions of law and fact regarding their FLSA and UCL claims. 

Typicality is satisfied if the class representatives’ claims are typical of those of the 

Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “The test of typicality is whether other members have the 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the 

named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course 

of conduct.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th 

Cir. 2010). The named plaintiffs’ claims involve the same injury and same conduct that 

other injured plaintiffs in this class would face. Accordingly, the typicality requirement 

is satisfied. 

Finally, the adequacy requirement is satisfied if the class representatives “will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The 

Ninth Circuit requires an evaluation of two factors: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their 

counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named 

plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” 

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. The named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives as 

they appear to share the goal to advance the interests of others in the class and have met 

with counsel to discuss the claims, supported discovery efforts, and attended two sessions 

of the Early Neutral Evaluations that directly led to this settlement. Adequacy is 

satisfied. 

Finally, the settlement also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Common 

questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members because the primary issue regarding Defendant’s tip pooling policy is 

influenced by common facts identical to all settlement members. Second, a class action 

is a superior method for settlement of the action as each class members’ claim is common 

to the class and the settlement ensures certainty. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the papers and pleadings submitted regarding Plaintiffs’ motion, and the 

remaining papers, pleadings and Orders in this action, and for good cause shown, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

IT IS ORDERED that the “Terms of Settlement for Resolution of Class/Collective 

Action and as Basis for Request for Court Approval,” (“Agreement”), submitted as 

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephanie Reynolds, is given Preliminary Approval as a 

full and final resolution of all claims as described therein, conditioned upon the Court’s 

Final Approval. The terms of the Agreement appear to be fair, fall within the range of 

reasonableness, and appropriate, subject to any objections that may be raised by the time 

of final approval.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Neal Pataky, Jessica Cleek, and 

Lauren Michelson are designated as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of 

settlement and the Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel, Timothy G. Williams and 

Stephanie Reynolds of Pope, Berger & Williams, LLP, are appointed as Class Counsel 

for purposes of settlement and the Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed to act as 

Settlement Administrator to fulfill the obligations as generally described in the 

Agreement and its March 12, 2018 proposal, submitted as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of 

Timothy G. Williams.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Notice of Settlement of Class Action and 

Collective Action (“Notice”), submitted as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Stephanie 

Reynolds, is specifically approved for use in the process of providing notice to Settlement 

Class Members by Rust Consulting, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to final approval and identification of all 

Settlement Class members to whom Rust Consulting, Inc. confirms were sent Notice, the 

Settlement Class members will be bound by the Agreement and any determinations and 

judgments concerning the same, including the full and complete releases by Settlement 

Class members of the Class Claims (as that term is defined in the Agreement) which will 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

settle, resolve, and forever bar those claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposal for allocation and distribution of 

the Settlement Amount (as that term is defined in the Agreement) as detailed in Plaintiffs’ 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their motion is preliminarily 

approved for Notice. Such distribution and allocation includes:

1. A service payment to each Plaintiff as may be approved by the Court at final 

approval of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars for their representation of the 

Settlement Class, in addition to their respective settlement shares available to them as 

members of the Settlement Class.

2. Attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel as may be approved by the Court at final 

approval of One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, which 

represents 25% of the Settlement Amount.

3. Reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs actually incurred by Plaintiffs’ 

counsel as may be approved by the Court at final approval, estimated to be approximately 

$1,500.00.

4. Costs of administration actually incurred by Rust Consulting, Inc. as may be 

approved by the Court at final approval, estimated to be approximately $18,556.00.

5. Distribution of the balance of the Settlement Amount to Settlement Class 

members to occur per Court Order all at once in a single distribution after final approval. 

Payments to Settlement Class members will be Fifty Percent as W-2 wages and Fifty 

Percent as non-taxed penalties. Taxes will be withheld on any wage portions paid to 

Settlement Class members by Rust Consulting, Inc., and the employer’s share of payroll 

taxes will be paid from the Settlement Amount.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Scheduling Order shall apply for 

continued case management and administration:

1. Defendant, THE BRIGANTINE, INC. (“Defendant”), shall comply with its 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

obligations under the Agreement, including its obligations to provide Settlement Class 

member data to Rust Consulting, Inc., and to pay the Settlement Amount to a qualified 

settlement fund established and maintained by Rust Consulting, Inc. pending final 

approval.

2. Notice to the Settlement Class shall be formatted as necessary by Rust 

Consulting, Inc. as four printed pages in no smaller than 12-point font, including 

completing all blank spaces in the Notice in accordance with this Order, and mailed to all 

Settlement Class members identified by Defendant by first class mail within fourteen 

days of receipt of the complete Settlement Class member data from Defendant. The 

Notice period for exclusion requests and comments/objections shall be sixty days from 

the original date of mailing, for a Settlement Class member to have returned or 

postmarked for return a comment, objection, or request for exclusion. Rust Consulting, 

Inc. shall continue to re-mail Notices on a rolling basis from returned mail up to ten days 

before the end of the Notice period. Notice to Class Members will not be undertaken by 

any other means.

A. Any Settlement Class member who wishes to object or comment must either 

file a written objection with a statement of reasons with the Court, or file with the Court a 

notice of intent to appear at the Final Approval hearing. All comments/objections/notices 

must be signed and set forth the name, address, last four digits of SSN, telephone 

number, and the name and number of the case. Any person who fails to either provide a 

timely written objection or notice of intent to appear and speak at the Final Approval 

hearing will be precluded from making such objection or opposition. Persons may not opt 

out and object; any person who opts out has no right to comment on the settlement. If a 

person objects and the objection is overruled, he/she will be bound by the settlement and 

will not be allowed to opt out.

B. Any Settlement Class member who wishes to be excluded from the 

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12

17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS

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

settlement must return a written request for exclusion/opt out. To be valid, an opt out 

request must the full name (printed), address, last four digits of SSN, telephone number, 

the name and number of the case and address, a statement requesting to be excluded from 

the class, and a signature.

3. The hearing on fairness and final approval will be November 2, 2018, at 

1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval of settlement, and a companion 

motion for attorneys’ fees and service award fees on or before September 14, 2018. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending a hearing on fairness and final approval 

of the settlement, all other pending dates and deadlines are VACATED, and the case is 

otherwise STAYED, except as it relates to settlement and this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS Document 84 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12