Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05669/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05669-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH AMEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CINEMARK USA INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05669-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL

APPROVAL AND AWARD OF 

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

Dkt. Nos. 208, 209, 211

On September 4, 2019, the parties’ motion for final approval of their Joint Stipulation of 

Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims and Joint Stipulation re Uncashed Checks 

(collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”). There were no objections submitted to the Settlement 

Agreement, and no one other than counsel for the parties appeared at the hearing.

In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Members have been given 

adequate notice of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and their right to participate in, object 

to, or opt-out of the settlement. In addition, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 

(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the United States Attorney General, the California Attorney 

General, and the attorney generals of any and all other states where Class Members resided at the 

time notice was issued have been given notice of the settlement of this action.

Having considered the Settlement Agreement (the terms of which are expressly 

incorporated in full by this reference and made a part of this Order), the supporting papers filed by 

the parties, the application for final approval of the settlement, the application for an award of 

Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs, the application for incentive award 

for the Class Representative, the request for reimbursement of the costs of the Settlement 

Administrator, the proposed PAGA allocation, and the evidence and argument received by the 

Court at the Final Approval Hearing on September 4, 2019, I GRANT final approval of the 

Case 3:13-cv-05669-WHO Document 215 Filed 09/06/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

settlement, and ORDER as follows:

1. The Class covered by this Order is defined as: 

All current and former non-exempt employees of Cinemark’s 

California theaters who worked as an usher or concession 

worker from December 3, 2011 until July 31, 2014, or in any 

other non-exempt position from July 25, 2012 until July 31, 

2014, and who were paid overtime compensation during at least 

one pay period.

2. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, a Notice of Class Action Settlement 

was sent to each Class Member by first-class mail. The Notice informed Class Members of the 

terms of the settlement, their right to object to or opt-out of the settlement to pursue their own 

remedies, and their right to appear in person or by counsel at the Final Approval Hearing to be 

heard regarding approval of the settlement. Adequate periods of time were provided by each of 

these procedures. No Class Members filed written objections to the settlement as part of this 

notice process or stated his or her intent to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. Three class 

members opted-out. Declaration of Mary Butler [Dkt. No. 211-2] ¶ 14.

3. The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate 

protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision 

regarding approval of the settlement based on the responses of Class Members. The Court finds 

and determines that the Notice provided in this case was the best notice practicable, which 

satisfied the requirements of law and due process. 

4. The Court further finds and determines that the terms of the settlement are fair, 

reasonable, and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member and that the Class Members who 

have not opted out shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement, that the settlement is ordered 

finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement should be and 

hereby are ordered to be consummated. 

5. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously found, and now reaffirms, 

that the allocation of settlement proceeds to the claim brought pursuant to the California Labor 

Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) as set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable to the State of California.

Case 3:13-cv-05669-WHO Document 215 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

6. The Court finds that Defendants have fully complied with CAFA’s notice 

requirements.

7. The Court finds and determines that the payments to be made to the Class Members 

as provided for in the Settlement Agreement are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby grants 

final approval to and orders the payment of those amounts be made to the Class Members out of 

the Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($2,900,000.00) Class Settlement 

Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

8. The Court hereby grants and approves the application presented by Settlement 

Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $966,667, to be paid in accordance 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

9. The Court hereby grants and approves the application presented by Class Counsel 

for an award of costs in the amount of $39,562.34, to be paid in accordance with the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement.

10. The Court hereby grants and approves the application presented by the Class 

Representative for an enhancement payment in the amount of $10,000 for Plaintiff Brown, to be 

paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.1 

11. The Court hereby grants and approves the application for payment of costs of 

administration of the Settlement in the amount of $32,749 for the fees and expenses of Simpluris, 

Inc., the settlement administrator approved by the Court (the “Settlement Administrator”).

12. Within twenty-one (21) days after the distribution of the settlement funds and 

payment of attorneys’ fees, the parties should file a Post-Distribution Accounting and written 

certification of such completion from the Settlement Administrator with the Court. 

13. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement (as defined in paragraph I.K of the 

Settlement Agreement), all Class Members who did not submit a valid Request For Exclusion 

Form release Defendants and each of their respective past, present and future owners, 

stockholders, all present and former parents, related or affiliated companies, subsidiaries, officers, 

 

1 The administrative motion to seal Dkt. No. 208 is GRANTED.

Case 3:13-cv-05669-WHO Document 215 Filed 09/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

directors, shareholders, employees, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants, agents, 

attorneys, representatives, auditors, consultants, insurers and re-insurers, and their respective 

predecessors or successors in interest and each of their company-sponsored employee benefit 

plans of any nature (including, without limitation, profit-sharing plans, pension plans, 401(k) 

plans, and severance plans) and all of their respective officers, directors, employees, 

administrators, fiduciaries, trustees and agents, and any other individual or entity which could be 

jointly liable with Defendants (the “Released Parties”) from the “Settled Claims,” as defined 

below, during the Settlement Class Period, which is defined in the Settlement Agreement as 

December 3, 2011 to the date the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement.

14. The “Settled Claims” are defined as: All claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and 

causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, whether 

in tort, contract, statute, rule, ordinance, order, regulation, or otherwise, whether for economic 

damages, non-economic damages, restitution, civil or statutory penalties, wages, liquidated 

damages, interest or attorneys’ fees or costs, arising from the same set of operative facts alleged in 

Complaints litigated in this case (i.e., the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Brown 

and the Complaint filed by Joseph Amey (collectively the “Operative Complaints”)), for direct and 

derivative wage statement violations (including claims for failure to keep accurate records and 

failure to provide accurate wage statements), and PAGA penalties associated with such alleged 

wage statement violations (the “PAGA Claims”). The Settled Claims specifically include any and 

all claims to recover civil penalties, statutory penalties, or damages under Labor Code § 226 or 

Labor Code § 226.3 and the PAGA for any alleged violation of Labor Code § 226, and any claims 

under Business and Professions Code § 17200 and all applicable Industrial Wage Commission 

Wage Orders related to direct or derivative wage statement claims as alleged in the Operative 

Complaints. The Settled Claims are those that accrued during the Settlement Class Period. 

15. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all Class Members (except for those who 

timely submitted Request for Exclusion Forms) are permanently barred from prosecuting the 

Released Parties for any Settled Claims.

Case 3:13-cv-05669-WHO Document 215 Filed 09/06/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

16. The parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement.

17. Without affecting the finality of this Final Order in any way, this Court retains 

jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, 

effectuation and enforcement of this Order and the Settlement Agreement.

18. This action and the Settled Claims are hereby ordered dismissed with prejudice, 

each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as provided by the Settlement 

Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2019 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05669-WHO Document 215 Filed 09/06/19 Page 5 of 5