Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01891/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01891-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GONZALEZ, individually and on 

behalf of all similarly situated people,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and 

CORECIVIC, INC.,

Defendants.

Lead Case No. 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT

Member Case No. 1:17-cv-01094-DAD-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO 

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

(Doc. No. 59)

THOMAS RICHARDS, individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated people,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC,

Defendant.

In connection with plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action 

settlement (Doc. No. 59) which came for hearing before the court on August 6, 2019, the parties 

are directed to file supplemental briefing addressing the following issues:

1. Whether the court correctly interprets proposed Subclass 1 to be the overarching 

class and Subclasses 2 and 3 to be constituent classes of Subclass 1, such that the 

Case 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT Document 71 Filed 03/03/20 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

2

parties estimate that there is a total of 1,070 class members represented in this 

action;

1

2. The adequacy of attorney Adrian R. Bacon’s representation as class counsel, 

including: 1) his years of experience as a litigator, 2) the cases that he—and not 

just his firm—actively litigated, 3) whether he has any conflicts of interest with the 

proposed classes or class members; and 4) what work he performed in the course 

of litigating this action;

3. The impact of a recent California Supreme Court decision on the valuation of 

plaintiffs’ claims and the settlement amount offered, see Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. 

S243805, 2020 WL 727813 (Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) (holding that time employees 

spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches was employercontrolled activity and therefore compensable as “hours worked” under California

Code of Regulations tit. 8, § 11070);

/////

/////

 

1 Subclass 1 has approximately 1,070 members and is defined as:

Subclass 1 – Non-compliant Meal and Rest Break Claims Class: 

All non-exempt employees of Defendant in California during the 

Class Period.

Subclass 2 has approximately 201 members and is defined as:

Subclass 2 – On Duty Meal Period Agreement Class: All nonexempt employees of Defendant in California during the Class 

Period who worked at the California City Correctional Facility in 

the position of Detention Officer, Senior Detention Officer or 

Assistant Shift Supervisor who executed an On-Duty Meal Period 

Agreement.

Subclass 3 has approximately 686 members and is defined as:

Subclass 3 – Off-the-Clock Security Measures Claims Class: 

All non-exempt employees of Defendant in California during the 

Class Period who worked at the California City Correctional 

Facility, San Diego Detention Center and/or the Otay Mesa

Detention Center.

(Doc. No. 59 at 10–11.)

Case 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT Document 71 Filed 03/03/20 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

3

4. The methodology plaintiffs used to reach the proposed settlement amount 

($3,200,000 or a recovery rate of approximately 19%), given the total, 

undiscounted value of plaintiffs’ claims ($17,077,966);

5. The reasonableness of an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount up to 33% of the 

Gross Settlement Fund in light of the circumstances of this case (which include a 

settlement reached at an early stage of the litigation without significant motion 

practice and a clear sailing provision of the proposed settlement pursuant to which 

defendants agree not to oppose the requested fee award) and the results obtained;

6. An estimate of plaintiff’s anticipated attorneys’ fees if calculated under the 

lodestar method and assurance that documentation will be submitted with the 

motion for final approval allowing the court to conduct a lodestar cross-check at 

that time;

7. The reasonable of incentive payments of up to $15,000 to named plaintiff 

Gonzalez and $10,000 to named plaintiff Richards under the circumstances of this 

case (including the provision of the settlement agreement pursuant to which 

defendants will not oppose the requested incentive awards in exchange for a 

general release of all claims by the named plaintiffs) and in light of what appears 

to be their relatively modest efforts in representing the class; and

8. The amount allocated for Settlement Administration Costs (compare Doc. No. 59-

1 at 12 (stating that settlement administration costs will not exceed $17,500), with

Doc. No. 59-1 at 8, 29, 55 (stating that the parties received a “not to exceed” bid of 

$17,175 and that the maximum settlement administration cost will not exceed 

$17,175), with Doc. No. 59-1 at 29 (stating that the maximum payout to the 

settlement administrator is $13,000)).

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT Document 71 Filed 03/03/20 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

4

The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues within ten (10) days from the

date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT Document 71 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 4