Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01432/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01432-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

RICK FRIERI, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, and on behalf 

of the general public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO SAN 

DIEGO, INC.; and DOES 1–100,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

(ECF No. 81)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement (“Mot.,” ECF No. 81). Because the settlement is fundamentally fair, 

reasonable, and adequate, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

After reviewing the Settlement Agreement, the supporting documents filed in 

support of the instant Motion, and the documents and arguments received by the Court with 

regard to the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and ORDERS AND 

MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS:

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

1. Rule 23 Requirements Satisfied. For the purposes of the settlement, the 

Court finds the class meets the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, 

typicality, and adequate representation and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of 

predominance and superiority. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary 

Approval Order, ECF No. 80, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, the

Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. 

2. Implementation of Settlement. This Order hereby adopts and incorporates 

by reference the terms and conditions of the Class Action Settlement Agreement 

(“Settlement Agreement,” ECF No. 76-2), together with the definitions and terms used and 

contained therein.

3. Jurisdiction. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter 

of this action and over all parties to it, including all members of the Settlement Class.

4. Class Notice Adequate. On March 5, 2019, class action administrator 

Nathalie Hernandez of ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM” or “Class Administrator”), filed a 

declaration (“Hernandez Decl.”) detailing the actions she has taken with regard to this class 

action, including providing notice. See Hernandez Decl., ECF No. 81-9. A review of the 

declaration and attached exhibits reveals that the Class Administrator provided notice in 

accordance with the Notice Plan. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement Class 

received adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement. The Class Notice fully and 

accurately informed Class Members of all material elements of the proposed settlement 

and of their opportunity to submit claims, opt out, or object; was the best notice practicable 

under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and 

complied fully with the laws of the United States of America and due process. The Class 

Notice fairly and adequately described the Settlement Agreement and provided Class 

Members with adequate instructions and a variety of means to obtain additional 

information. The Court therefore finds the Class Notice adequate. 

5. Class Members Bound. The Court determines that all Class Members who 

did not timely and properly opt out of the Settlement Agreement are bound by this Order. 

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

All Class Members were given a full and fair opportunity to participate in the Approval 

Hearing, and all members of the Settlement Class wishing to be heard have been heard. 

Members of the Settlement Class also have had a full and fair opportunity to exclude 

themselves from the proposed settlement and the class. Accordingly, the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement and of the Court’s Order shall be forever binding on all Class 

Members who did not timely and properly opt out. These Class Members have released 

and forever discharged the Defendant for any and all Released Claims.

6. Fairness, Adequacy, Reasonableness. The Court has considered all relevant 

factors for determining the fairness of the Settlement Agreement and has concluded that 

all such factors weigh in favor of granting final approval. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e)(2), the Court may approve a proposed settlement that would bind class 

members only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate. The Ninth Circuit has enumerated various factors that the Court should consider 

in determining whether a proposed settlement meets the fair, reasonable, and adequate 

standard, including: (1) the strength of plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, 

and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status 

throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery 

completed, and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; 

(7) the presence of a governmental participant; (8) and the reaction of the class members 

to the proposed settlement. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). 

This determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id.

In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court addressed each of the Hanlon factors 

in turn and found that all of the pertinent factors weighed in favor of approving the Class 

Settlement. See Prelim. Approval Order at 10–15. Since that Order, no Class Members 

have filed objections or opted out of the class action settlement. Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 9–11. 

Because no pertinent facts have changed since the previous analysis, the Court affirms and 

adopts its analysis of the Rule 23(e) requirements as set forth in the Preliminary Approval 

///

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

Order. See Prelim. Approval Order at 10–15. Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement 

to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). 

7. Settlement Approved. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the 

settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and expressly finds that the settlement 

is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the entire Settlement 

Class. The Court hereby directs implementation of all remaining terms, conditions, and 

provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Court also finds that settlement will avoid 

additional and potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and risks if the Parties 

were to continue to litigate the case. Additionally, after considering the monetary recovery 

provided by the settlement in light of the challenges posed by continued litigation, the 

Court concludes that the settlement provides Class Members with fair and adequate relief.

8. Settlement Not an Admission of Liability. The Settlement Agreement is not 

an admission by Defendant or by any other released party, nor is this Order a finding of the 

validity of any allegations or of any wrongdoing by Defendant or any other released party. 

Neither this Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any document referred to herein, nor 

any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement, may be construed as, or may be 

used as, an admission of any fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession, or liability 

whatsoever by or against Defendant or any of the other released parties.

9. Class Definitions. Final approval shall be with respect to: 

Settlement Class: All persons within the State of California who are or were 

employed by Sysco San Diego, Inc. in the State of California at any time as a 

truck driver from April 11, 2012, through February 17, 2019. 

10. Class Representative. Plaintiff Rick Frieri is a suitable representative and is

hereby appointed the representative for the Settlement Class. The Court finds the 

representative’s investment and commitment to the litigation and its outcome ensured 

adequate and zealous advocacy for the Settlement Class, and that his interests are aligned 

with those of the Settlement Class.

///

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

11. Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The Court finds that the attorneys at Mara Law Firm

have the requisite qualifications, experience, and skill to protect and advance the interests 

of the Settlement Class. The Court therefore finds that the Mara Law Firm satisfies the 

professional and ethical obligations attendant to the position of Class Counsel, and hereby 

appoints the Mara Law Firm as counsel for the Settlement Class.

12. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards. As discussed below, the

Court approves the requests for Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Incentive 

Awards. 

13. Claims Administration Costs. The Court approves claims administration 

costs and expenses in the amount of $7,500.00 to ILYM Group, Inc.

14. Payment to Class. Defendant will pay Class Members pursuant to the 

procedure described in the Settlement Agreement. Defendant will have no further liability 

for costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability, 

except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel seeks 25% of the $800,000.00 Maximum Settlement Fund 

totaling $200,000.00, and $24,535.35 in costs. Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees at 8. In addition, 

the Settlement Agreement provides an incentive award in the amount of $10,000.00 for 

Rick Frieri. Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees at 8, 14–16. Having reviewed the Settlement 

Agreement and the supporting documents filed in support of the instant Motion, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards and 

ORDERS AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS:

1. Attorneys’ Fees. Class Counsel requested fees of 25% of the Settlement 

Amount totaling $200,000. A 25% recovery is the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark in “common 

fund” cases. The Court finds that an award of 25% of the common fund is reasonable 

because of the complexity of this case, the favorable results achieved by Class Counsel in 

the Settlement Agreement, the risk Class Counsel assumed by taking this case on 

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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

contingency, and the award being in line with the lodestar calculation. This percentage of 

the common fund is in line with other attorneys’ fees awards in California and the Ninth 

Circuit. See, e.g. Lafitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480, 506 (2016) (affirming 

one-third award); Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431 (E.D. Cal. July 

2, 2013) (approving one-third award). 

2. Costs. The Court finds the requested costs are appropriate. The Court finds

that counsel in this area would normally bill the requested costs separately from hourly 

rates to a paying client. The Court also finds the costs are reasonable in light of the scope 

and complexity of this litigation. Class Counsel expended $24,535.35 in costs. No 

objections to these costs have been made. 

3. Incentive Awards. The Court finds that the requested incentive award is

reasonable. The class representative took on reputational and monetary risk by litigating 

claims against an employer or prospective employer. Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees at 9–10. 

Additionally, the class representative remained involved during the course of this litigation 

by participating numerous discussions with his attorneys and his coworkers. Id. at 34 

(citing Frieri Decl. ¶ 79-81, ECF No. 81-8). Based on these factors, the total incentive 

award of $10,000.00 is approved. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final 

Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (2) GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees and Costs and for Incentive Awards. 

The Court HEREBY ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT in this case in accordance 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement, and this Order. This Order constitutes a final judgment. The Parties 

shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees except as otherwise provided by the 

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

16-CV-1432 JLS (NLS)

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 Agreement and the Court’s Order Granting Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, 

Class Representative Incentive Award, and Claims Administration expenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-AHG Document 85 Filed 03/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7