Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00357-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

Attorneys for Plaintiffs & Putative Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

ROSALIE CUEVAS, ADOLFO GOMEZMORENO, REYNALDO TOLANO, and 

AGUSTIN AMBRIZ, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DIAS & FRAGOSO, INC., a California 

Corporation; D & F AGRICULTURAL 

ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; 

GABRIEL M. DIAS; and JOHN L. FRAGOSO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00357-BAM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT, 

AWARD OF SERVICE PAYMENTS, AND 

AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND 

COSTS

Date: January 10, 2020

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 8

JOHN E. HILL, State Bar No. 45338

ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, State Bar No. 206884

Law Offices of John E. Hill

333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500

Oakland, CA 94621

Telephone: (510) 588-1000

Facsimile: (510) 632-1445

Email: enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

Plaintiffs Rosalie Cuevas, Adolfo Gomez-Moreno, Reynaldo Tolano, and Agustin Ambriz

filed this class and collective action alleging unpaid overtime compensation, failure to provide meal 

and rest breaks, failure to reimburse work-related expenses, failure to pay reporting time wages, and 

derivative claims against Defendants Dias & Fragoso, Inc., D & F Agricultural Enterprises, Inc., 

Gabriel M. Dias, and John L. Fragoso. The claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), the California Labor Code, California Business & Professions Code 

§ 17200 et seq., and the California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. 

(“PAGA”). Pending before the Court is the motion for final approval of the Amended Stipulation 

and Agreement to Settle Class and Collective Action (“Settlement Agreement”). The Court heard 

oral argument on January 10, 2020. Class Counsel Enrique Martinez appeared by telephone on 

behalf of Plaintiffs and William Woolman appeared by telephone on behalf of Defendants. No 

objectors appeared at the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, and as stated on the record, the 

motion for final approval is HEREBY GRANTED.

In the Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action 

Settlement, the Court found that the Rule 23(a) prerequisites and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements were 

met for the Rule 23 class. The Court is not aware of any new facts that would affect its findings in 

support of class certification. The Court previously conditionally certified the collective action for 

the FLSA class under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the Court is not aware of any new facts that would 

support decertification of the FLSA class. 

In the Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action 

Settlement, the Court found that the Class Notice was reasonably clear and should be reasonably 

understandable to the Settlement Class. It also found that the Class Notice satisfied the 

requirements under Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause. The Claims Administrator mailed English 

and Spanish versions of the Class Notice and the Dispute Form to all class members at their last 

known addresses. The Class Notice adequately described all of the relevant and necessary parts of 

the proposed Settlement Agreement, the request for service payments to the Named Plaintiffs for 

serving as class representatives, and Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs.

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

2

After the Court conditionally certified the FLSA collective action on May 2, 2018, the Court 

ordered that notice be sent to members of the FLSA collective action informing them about the 

FLSA claim and their right to opt into the FLSA collective action by July 31, 2018. The FLSA 

Notice mailed as part of preliminary approval was properly sent only to individuals who timely 

opted in, and it informed them about their FLSA payment. 

Following preliminary approval of the class and collective action, the Court initially declined 

to grant final approval of the settlement agreement because not all members of the class for the class 

period preliminarily approved by the Court had been provided notice of the settlement. The Court 

subsequently ordered that a notice and dispute form be sent to the additional class members and the 

Claims Administrator mailed the class notice and dispute forms to these class members on 

November 6, 2019. The class members had 30 days after mailing to object, request to be excluded 

or dispute their number of pay periods. No objections were filed and there are no pending disputes.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), 

and are a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. Plaintiffs’ case was 

strong, but there were potential uncertainties, both on the merits and as to class certification. The 

parties had sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement. The settlement 

fund will provide substantial relief to class members now, while avoiding the risks, delays, and 

expense of continued litigation. Further, Class Counsel’s experienced opinion is that the settlement 

is fair, reasonable and adequate. The settlement is also the product of arms-length negotiations. 

The parties engaged in mediation with a professional mediator experienced in wage and hour class 

actions. Although the mediation did not result in settlement, it facilitated that the parties’ continued 

settlement discussions which ultimately led to their agreement to settle the action. No class member

has objected to the Settlement Agreement. There are no signs of collusion. The Court finds that the 

uncertainty and delay of further litigation support the reasonableness and adequacy of the $775,000

common fund established pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Any funds remaining in the trust 

account will be paid to Valley Children’s Hospital, a nonprofit organization, as cy pres recipient. 

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

3

The exception is unclaimed FLSA wages, which will be redistributed among members of the 

collective action.

Service awards of $7,500 for each Named Plaintiff are reasonable, in light of the significant 

time and energy they expended on this matter and the risks they faced in serving as class 

representatives.

Class Counsel seeks $193,750 in attorney fees, which is equivalent to 25 percent of the 

common fund and the benchmark for a reasonable fee award in the Ninth Circuit. Here, a lodestar 

cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the percentage award. Class Counsel Enrique Martinez 

and contract attorney Jocelyn Sperling both have extensive experience and, for purposes of the 

lodestar cross-check, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $400 is reasonable. The Court will use 

the reasonable hourly rate of $100 for the paralegals. The Court reviewed the time entries and finds 

that the hours expended were reasonable. Class Counsel has cut some hours, and has not included 

time spent on the fee portion of the motion. Utilizing these rates, the lodestar cross-check is higher 

than the 25 percent amount of $193,750 and awarding 25 percent of the common fund does not 

result in a windfall. 

The Law Offices of John E. Hill expended more than $23,780.89 in costs in the

representation of Plaintiffs and the class and collective action. The costs were primarily for

mediator fees, data entry expenses, filing fees, travel expenses to meet with class members, and 

mailing costs. The costs expended were reasonable and necessary. As discussed at the hearing, the 

amount requested in costs exceeds the $23,000.00 amount agreed upon by the parties in the 

Settlement Agreement and preliminarily approved by the Court. Absent any objection from the 

parties, the Court therefore will award $23,000.00 in costs. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. For purposes of this Order, the Court adopts the terms defined in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

4

2. The Court finds that the Rule 23(a) prerequisites and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are 

met for the Settlement Class, and the requirements are met for certification of the FLSA class under 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

3. The Court finds that the Class Notice was the best notice practicable as required by

Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. The Class Notice was mailed to all members of the Settlement 

Class, using their last known addresses. Notice was previously sent to members of the FLSA class; 

the FLSA Notice mailed as part of preliminary approval informed those who had timely opted into 

the FLSA collective action about their FLSA payment. 

4. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and 

adequate under Rule 23(e). The Court also finds that the terms are a fair and reasonable resolution 

of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. 

5. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved and all provisions shall be effectuated,

with one modification regarding the timing of the payment of the settlement amount. Under the 

Settlement Agreement, Defendants are required to pay $475,000 within 30 days of the date of 

Final Approval Order, and the second and final payment of $300,000 by February 28, 2020. 

The modification to the Settlement Agreement is that Defendants shall make both payments of 

$475,000 and $300,000, totaling the $775,000 settlement amount, no later than February 28, 2020. 

6. The Named Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, and FLSA class members are barred 

from any future legal proceedings against Defendants concerning any of the Released Claims. 

However, any person who timely opted out of the Class will not be bound by the settlement of the 

California claims, will not release his or her California claims, and will not be barred from future 

legal proceedings on the California claims. Any person who did not submit a consent to join/opt in 

to the FLSA action will not be bound by the settlement of the FLSA overtime claim, will not release 

the FLSA claim, and will not be barred from future legal proceedings on the FLSA claim.

7. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement Agreement, the claims 

administrator shall provide written certification of such completion to the Court and counsel for the 

parties.

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 5 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

5

8. Class representatives Rosalie Cuevas, Adolfo Gomez-Moreno, Reynaldo Tolano, and 

Agustin Ambriz are each awarded a service payment of $7,500.00 to be paid from the gross 

settlement fund. 

9. Class counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $193,750.00 and costs of 

$23,000.00, to be paid from the gross settlement fund.

10. The Court finds that an allocation of $10,000.00 of the gross settlement fund to the 

PAGA claims is reasonable. The claims administrators shall pay $7,500 (75 percent of the 

allocation) to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

11. The claims administrator shall be paid $14,565.40 from the gross settlement fund for 

the cost of notice and claims administration.

12. The Court finds that the individual settlement payments to be paid to members of the 

class and collective action, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are fair and reasonable. The 

Court finally approves and orders the payment of those amounts be made from the net settlement 

proceeds in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

13. The claims administrator shall send any funds remaining in the trust account to

Valley Children’s Hospital, a nonprofit organization, as cy pres recipient. However, any unclaimed 

FLSA wages shall be redistributed among members of the collective action.

14. The Court hereby enters Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, and 

approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each side shall bear its own costs and attorney

fees, except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and set forth herein. The Court retains 

jurisdiction over the interpretation, administration, implementation, and enforcement of this Order 

and the Settlement Agreement until the settlement funds are distributed or for one year after the date 

of this Order, whichever is sooner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00357-BAM Document 68 Filed 01/14/20 Page 6 of 6