Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00718/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00718-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN MOORE, BRIAN HATHEWAY, 

ANTONIO CASTILLO, ALEXANDER 

SILVA, JON SANDERS on their own 

behalf, on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, and on behalf of the general 

public. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.E. STAITE ENGINEERING, INC. 

Defendants

Case No. 07 CV 718-JM (WMC) 

ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 

CLASS SETTLEMENT, CLASS 

ENHANCEMENTS, AND 

ATTORNEYS FEES 

 

Hearing Date: December 18, 2008 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Magistrate: Hon. William McCurine 

I 

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary approval of this class action settlement was granted on September 4, 2008. 

The settlement agreed to by the parties resolves the wage and hour Class Claims1

 of the class of 

Plaintiffs2

 against Defendant, R.E. STAITE, during the Class Period.3 Plaintiffs’ claims included 

 

1

 Claims that Defendant violated wage and hour laws under California and/or Federal and claims 

that Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq.. Settlement 

Agreement, Exhibit 1, p. 8, ¶9, Class Claims. Order Preliminarily Approving Class Certification 

and Settlement [“Preliminary Order”], paragraphs 3, 8 d., & 14, dated September 4, 2008. 

2

 “All persons who were employed by Defendant in California in non-exempt (hourly) positions 

and who primarily worked in the field, and whose primary duties did not consist of office work or 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 1 of 11
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 

2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

 

contentions that Defendant failed and or refused to provide Class Members their rest breaks. 

Defendant has a relatively high turn over rate, employing 20 to 35 Class Members at a time, 

resulting in a total class of 153 individuals. The settlement amount in this case is two hundred and 

forty five thousand dollars ($245,000.00). 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint pled the nine causes of action alleging violations of California 

statutes: (1) unfair business practices; (2) failure to pay for all hours worked (3) failure to provide 

lunch breaks; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to pay wages when due;(6) failure to 

pay wages upon quitting or discharge;(7) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (8) 

withholding monies knowingly owed; and (9) failure to provide safe employment. 

Defendant contends it complied with all California and federal wage and hour laws, and 

that a substantial portion of all hours worked was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of United 

States government, and not subject to California law,4

 the work having been performed or having 

been originated, on federal enclaves. Defendant has contended, and Plaintiffs have conceded, that 

during the Class Period a substantial amount of plaintiffs' hours worked physically occurred on 

military installations, including: (1) the 32nd Street Naval Station in San Diego, (2) Point Lorna 

Naval Submarine base in San Diego, (3) North Island Naval Station in Coronado, (4) Seal Beach 

Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach, (5) San Clemente Island Naval Station, and/or (6) Camp 

Pendleton Marine Base. Defendants contend, and Plaintiffs have conceded, that an average of 

43% of the Named Plaintiffs work occurred at those locations: Castillo 15%, Moore 31%, 

Hathaway 35%, Sanders 59%, Silva 74%. Based on all of the above, Defendant contended that 

clerical work, between December 22, 2002 and the date of this Court’s preliminary approval of 

the Settlement.” Order Preliminarily Approving Class Certification and Settlement [“Preliminary 

Order”], paragraph 7, dated September 4, 2008. 

3

 December 22, 2002 to September 4, 2008. Exhibit 1, Settlement Agreement, p. 5, para. 9, and p. 

5-6 para. 13. 

4

 U.S. Const., art. I, §8, cl.17; Paul v. U.S. Government (1963) 371 U.S. 245, 268. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller 

(1988) 486 U.S. 174, 180-181 Kelly v. Lockheed Martine Services Group (DPR 1998) 25 F. Supp.2d 1, 3. 

Brictson Dec. ¶ 23. 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 2 of 11
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 

3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

Plaintiffs California claims were precluded in their entirety.5

II. 

ANALYSIS FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

i) Standard of Review

“Assessing a settlement proposal requires the district court to balance a number of factors: 

the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 

further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the 

amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 

participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.”6

ii) Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and Risks Of Litigation 

Defendant denies all of Plaintiffs’ claims, and maintains that it complied with all 

California and federal wage and hour laws. In addition, Defendant maintains that California 

wage and hour laws do not apply to the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims, contending Plaintiffs’ work 

occurred within federal enclaves. In addition, California wage and hour law regarding the burden 

of proof in regards to rest breaks remains in flux. 

 Defendant argues that only federal wage and hour law applied, not California law. 7

Property within the territorial boundaries of the State of California that have been transferred to 

the U.S. Government may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, or 

three types of exceptions to that exclusive jurisdiction.8 Case law has developed discussing the 

three possible scenarios, or qualifications, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The 

 

5

 Brictson Decl. ¶23. 

6 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation. 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1997), citing Torrisi v. Tucson 

Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993), and Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d 615, 625 

(9th Cir. 1982). 

. 

7

 Brictson Decl. ¶11-14 

8 Paul v. United States 371 U.S. 245, 264 (1963). 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 3 of 11
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8

11 

14 

4 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

 

first exception described in case law is the exception in which the state may continue to exercise 

jurisdiction expressly reserved by the state as a condition to its consent (and consistent with the 

federal use).9 The second exception to exclusive jurisdiction is that state laws existing at the time 

the United States accepts jurisdiction over the property at issue remains enforceable upon that 

property unless "abrogated" by federal law.10 As such, property within the territorial boundaries 

that have been transferred to the U.S. Government may be subject to: 

• The exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government (hereinafter “exclusive”); or 

• The jurisdiction of the federal government with California maintaining partial jurisdiction in 

order to effect service and tax (hereinafter “partial”); or 

• The proprietarial jurisdiction of California, meaning California maintains jurisdiction over the 

property as if the transferred had not had occurred (hereinafter “proprietarial”); of that has 

been transferred from the State of California to the U.S. Government; or 

• The concurrent jurisdiction of both the State of California and the U.S. Government 

(hereinafter “concurrent”). 

The terms and condition of the transfer expressed by the State of California and the federal 

government determine the jurisdictional status of the land. 

Defendant contends, and Plaintiffs have conceded, that Defendant’s office is located on 

the 32nd Street Naval Base.11 Defendant has contended, and Plaintiffs have conceded, that during 

the Class Period a substantial amount of plaintiffs' hours worked physically occurred on military 

installations, including: (1) the 32nd Street Naval Station in San Diego, (2) Point Lorna Naval 

Submarine base in San Diego, (3) North Island Naval Station in Coronado, (4) Seal Beach Naval 

Weapons Station in Seal Beach, (5) San Clemente Island Naval Station, and/or (6) Camp 

9 Id at 268. 

10 James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940). 

11 Brictson Decl. ¶ 23. 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 4 of 11
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 

5 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

Pendleton Marine Base. 12 Defendants contend, and Plaintiffs have conceded, that an average of 

43% of the Named Plaintiffs work occurred at those locations: Castillo 15%, Moore 31%, 

Hathaway 35%, Sanders 59%, Silva 74%.12

Although Plaintiffs disputed Defendant’s contentions, having performed adequate factual 

and legal research, including obtaining satellite images of the worksites , researching California 

States Lands Commission and County Recorder records, and consulting with cartographers, it is 

apparent that this dispute is subject to expert witness testimony, and interpretation of 60 years of 

land deeds and lease agreements since World War II. As such, Plaintiffs face a substantial risk 

proceeding with further litigation, and settlement appears reasonable. 

iii) Discovery

The Parties have conducted significant discovery and investigation of the facts and law 

both before and after the Action was filed.12 That discovery and investigation included the 

exchange of information pursuant to extensive informal discovery (including initial disclosures 

pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), meetings and conferences between 

Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel, neutral evaluation conferences with this Court, formal 

written discovery (including special interrogatories, document requests, and requests for 

admissions), and extensive interviews of potential witnesses.15 

Class Counsel performed legal research, as well as research the archival documents of the 

County Recorders at the multiple job sites that Plaintiffs performed hours work, to determine the 

terms and conditions of the property transfers, their boundaries, the evolution of the transfers, 

leases, exchanges, and other agreements and contracts. 15 Class Counsel also had to match the 

legislative history of the applicable state statutes its evolution, to the jurisdictional history of the 

 

12 Brictson Decl.¶¶14-21.

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 5 of 11
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 

6 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

multiple job sites at issue.13 

Class Counsel consulted cartographers employed by both the State of California and the 

Department of the Navy.16 The Action involves numerous complex issues of fact and law, 

including the application of the federal enclave doctrine, and California public policy regarding 

the exchange of land with the federal government. 16

iv) The Amount Offered In Settlement, Potential Recovery, Notice

As described in the attached Declarations, the parties participated in multiple document 

exchanges and informal discovery conferences. As noted above, the total settlement amount in 

this case is $245,000. This settlement provides reasonable monetary relief for the settlement class 

members. Over and above this amount, Defendant has accepted full responsibility for the 

administration costs.14 The settlement awards to each of the settlement classes are based on a 

formula which represents a pro rata distribution of the settlement based on the number of weeks 

worked within the class period.15 The method of allocating the fund among claimants, on a pro 

rata basis according to weeks worked for covered employees during a covered time period, is a 

reasonable means of approximating the relative value of each claim, and thus ensures a fair 

distribution of the fund. 

Claimants' ability to dispute the Defendant’s records on the Claim Form16as to the dates 

that he or she met the definition of a Class Member, or as to the proper size of his or her claim, 

protects each Class Members right to fair and compensation. Additionally, the requirements that 

the Claims Administrator notify Class Members of any deficiencies in their Claim Forms will 

encourage all Class Members who do not opt out to file valid claims. 

 

13 Brictson Decl.¶¶14-21. 14 Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement, page 9, ¶2 

15 Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement, page 10, ¶23(d) 

16 Exhibit 2, Notice of Class Settlement and Claim Form; Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement, p. 12 ¶26(c). 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 6 of 11
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 

7 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

The form of the Notice and the manner of distribution performed by the Parties was the 

best notice practicable. The Claims Administrator performed address updates and verifications as 

necessary prior to the first mailing.17 Defendant paid for the cost of such notice.18 

The Notice was directly mailed to all Class Members advising them of :1) the nature of 

this litigation; 2) the definition of the settlement classes; 3) the identity of Class Counsel; 4) 

essential terms of the Settlement Agreement; 5) the amount of attorneys' fees Class Counsel will 

seek and the proposed service payments to the named Plaintiffs; 6) how to participate in the 

settlement; 7) this Court's procedures for final approval of the Settlement Agreement; 8) how to 

challenge or opt out of the settlement; and 9) how to obtain additional information regarding this 

litigation and the settlement.19 

The Claims Administrator sent Notice and Claim Form to each Class Member by first 

class mail after preliminary approval, all objections, claims, or opt-outs are must be post marked 

by December 6, 2008.23As such, it complies with the Notice requirements set forth in F.R.C.P. 

23(e). Specifically, the Notice advised the putative class members of the amount of fees and costs 

that would be sought by Class Counsel and advised them that they could object to the terms of the 

settlement if they choose to do so. The Declaration of the Claims Administrator supports the 

determination that all class members received reasonable notice and approval of the settlement is 

in compliance with law. 

v). Settlement Awards

As agreed by the parties, and explained in the Notice, the settlement awards payable to 

participating class members are based on a formula20: each member who returns a claim form 

shall receive a proportional share of the settlement, based on the total number of shifts worked by 

 

17 Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement p. 12 ¶ 27. 

18 Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement p. 9, ¶ 2. 

19 Exhibit 2, Notice of Class Settlement and Claim Form; 

20 Exh. 1, Settlement Agreement, p. 10¶ 23(d). 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 7 of 11
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 

8 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

 $3,120.00.21 

the class within the class period, at a rate of approximately $15 a week.21 Assuming that the 

Court grants the full amount of attorney's fees, costs, enhancement awards and claims 

administration costs sought, a class member who worked four years full time shall be entitled to 

approximately

The true benefit of this total payout settlement is evidenced by the reasonable monetary 

recovery achieved for the settlement class members, in light of the constitution of the class and 

the risks of litigation. Going forward with trial likely would not have increased the monetary 

relief recovered by the class and carried with it certain dangers, including liability being 

determined in favor of defendant and the class members receiving absolutely no monetary relief. 

vi) Experience and Views of Counsel

 Class Counsel, Timothy Brictson and Stefan Cohn, submitted sufficient declarations 

establishing that they regularly handle wage and hour cases and are experienced in wage and hour 

class actions. Class Counsel have served as the attorneys in several complex class actions, 

representing plaintiff classes in other class actions, several of which were wage and hour class 

actions. Class Counsel successfully pursued the wage and hour class actions where class action 

status was certified. Class counsel have previous litigation experience as to the unique factual 

issues central to the litigation of this lawsuit, specifically the questions of concurrent or exclusive 

jurisdiction of state or federal law over California employees working in and around navigable 

waters and federal enclaves. As a result, Class Counsel are in a unique position to determine the 

difficulty Class Members face. Defense counsel, J. Rod Betts and Gregory Klawitter, Paul Plevin 

Sullivan and Connaughton are well versed in complex and employment litigation. Class counsel 

expects should this matter proceed into further litigation, Defense counsel would provide a 

competent, zealous, and insightful defense. As such, the negotiated settlement and claimed 

 

21 Exh. 2; Brictson Decl.¶ 39. 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 8 of 11
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 

9 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

attorneys fees are fair and reasonable and in compliance with the law. 

vii) No Class Members Have Objections 

The Declaration of the Claims administrator fully supports approval of this settlement. 

viii)Attorneys’ Fees

The settlement agreement reached by the parties provides that Class Counsel, the Law 

Office of Brictson & Cohn, will receive $70,000.00 in attorneys’ fees. “Federal courts have the 

ability to award attorneys’ fees ‘in the exercise of their equitable powers.’” Wininger v. SI 

Management L.P., 301 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). The common fund doctrine permits the 

burden of litigating to be shared among the individuals that are benefited by the efforts of the 

litigant. Paul,Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 (9th Cir. 1989). 

“‘Jurisdiction over the fund involved in the litigation allows a court to ... assess[ ] attorney’s fees 

against the entire fund, thus spreading fees proportionately among those benefited by the suit.’” 

Wininger, 301. F.3d at 1120 (quoting Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980)). In 

this case, counsel have conferred more than reasonable value upon the individual class members. 

Counsel expended significant time and effort in obtaining this settlement. Accordingly, the Court 

concludes that the requested attorneys’ fees are fair and reasonable. 

ix) Class Representative Enhancement

The settlement requires Defendant to pay Plaintiff a class representatives enhancement 

awards of $5,000 each. Court’s assess incentive awards based on the following criteria: (1) the 

risk assumed by the class representative; (2) the difficulties incurred to the plaintiff personally; 

(3) time and energy spent; (4) the length of the litigation; and (5) the benefit to the plaintiff as 

class representative. See Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F.Supp. 294, 299 (N.D.Cal. 

1995). In light of the standards and the time Plaintiff spent preparing the case with his 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 9 of 11
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 

10 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

counsel and the risks and costs assumed, the Court concludes that the class representative 

enhancement award of $5,000.00 each is fair and reasonable. 

III 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

1. CERTIFIES as class members for the purposes of settlement as: “All persons who were 

employed by Defendant in California in non-exempt (hourly) positions and who primarily worked 

in the field, and whose primary duties did not consist of office work or clerical work, between 

December 22, 2002 and the date of this Court’s preliminary approval of the Settlement, 

September 4, 2008. 

2. APPROVES the parties’ settlement agreement that requires Defendants to pay a gross sum of 

$245,000.00. 

3. APPROVES the parties’ settlement agreement that requires Defendants to pay a 

Administration and Notice Costs independently and separate from the gross sum of $245,000.00 

settlement. 

3. APPROVES attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of 

$70,000 to be paid out of, and to be subtracted from, the gross settlement sum of $245,000.00. 

 4. APPROVES the class representative enhancement award for Plaintiff 

in the amount of $5,000 each to be paid out of, and to be subtracted from, the gross settlement 

sum of $245,000.00. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 10 of 11
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL 

5. APPROVES the payment of $3,750 payable to the California Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency, in accordance with page 9-10, ¶23(c)(4) of the Settlement Agreement 

Additionally, the Court ORDERS the clerk to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 26, 2008 ________________________________ 

 Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. 

 United States District Court 

 Southern District of California 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00718-WMC Document 36 Filed 12/26/08 Page 11 of 11