Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05235-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conchito Cabiles
Plaintiff
Mission Bay Inc.
Defendant
Horacio De Veyra Palana
Plaintiff
Print It Here And Copy, Inc.
Defendant
Joan Soliven
Plaintiff
Alexander Yalung
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, JOAN 

SOLIVEN, CONCHITO CABILES, and 

ALEXANDER YALUNG, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, and SHEILAH BALAGTAS and 

FELIX CADENAS individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MISSION BAY INC. and PRINT IT 

HERE AND COPY, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF 

REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

COSTS

Date: August 5, 2016

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Location: Ctrm 1, 17

th Floor

San Francisco Federal Courthouse

Judge: Susan Illston, Senior Judge 

Trial Date: Not Set 

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

The parties to the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") have entered into a Settlement 

Agreement and Release of Claims, together with exhibits (collectively, the "Settlement Agreement" 

or "Settlement"), that sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement, which if 

approved by the Court, would fully and finally resolve the Litigation.

On May 13, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and by an Order filed on 

May 18, 2016, this Court Ordered the Third Party Claims Administrator to cause to be mailed to the 

Class English and Tagalog Notices of the proposed Settlement, the amount sought for fees and costs, 

the amount each Class Member would receive, and their rights to object and opt out. See Dkt 153 

Having considered the Motion for Final Approval and the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ 

Fees and Costs, the points and authorities and declarations submitted in support of the Motions, 

including the Class Action Settlement and Release and exhibits, and the notice of class action 

settlement, and the statements of counsel at the hearing on the Motion and GOOD CAUSE 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and the Court makes the 

following findings and orders:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, 

found as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Huy Tran in Support of the Motion for Final Approval and 

all terms in this Order shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, entered into among 

the Parties and their counsel, is approved as it appears to be proper, to fall within the range of 

reasonableness, to be the product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, to treat all Class 

Members fairly, and to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at 

or before the final approval hearing. 

3. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted sufficient investigation and 

research, and that they were able to reasonably evaluate the position of Plaintiffs and class members 

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

and the strengths and weaknesses of their claims. Plaintiffs have provided the Court with enough 

information about the nature and magnitude of the claims being settled, as well as the impediments 

to recovery, to make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the 

parties have agreed. The Court also finds that settlement now will avoid additional and potentially 

substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and risks if the Parties were to continue to litigate the 

Action.

4. The Court finds that no class member has opted out or objected. Moreover, only one 

Notice was returned to the Administrator, a second skip search was undertaken, and re-mailed. The 

Notice was again returned to the Administrator. The name of this class member is Nieves Y. Brady 

and the settlement amount she was to receive was $975.09. The Court considered the two attempts 

to mail by the Administrator and the fact class member Brady is no longer employed by defendants 

and finds that the attempts to send notice were sufficient. The Court redistributes her amount in a 

pro rate manner to the rest of the class members. 

5. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement, including all the terms and conditions 

set forth therein and the class settlement amount and allocation of payments to Class Members.

6. Defendants shall, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, transmit to CPT 

Group as the Third Party Claims Administrator the settlement sum of $450,000.00.

7. The Court directs the mailing by the Third Party Claims Administrator, by First-Class 

U.S. mail, of the amounts as reflected to Exhibit 1 of the Proposed Order, Dkt. No. 170-1.

8. Having considered the request for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the 

methodology and load star amount accounting, the Court approves the payment of $150,000.00 as 

attorneys’ fees and $13,710.18 in costs.

9. All further proceedings are hereby stayed except for any that are required to effectuate the 

Settlement Agreement.

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

DISCUSSION

As to the Approval of the settlement, the Court reasons as follows: “The claims, issues, or 

defenses of a certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 

The Court may finally approve a class settlement “only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of the

City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). To assess whether a proposed 

settlement comports with Rule 23(e), a district court “may consider some or all” of the following 

factors: (1) the strength of plaintiff’s 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; and (8) the reaction 

of the class members to the proposed settlement. Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 

963 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). No 

single factor is the “most significant.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. 

In addition, “[a]dequate notice is critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule 

23(e).” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025. As discussed below, the Court finds that the proposed settlement 

is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that class members received adequate notice.

1. Adequacy of Notice 

In determining whether notice was adequate the Court must ensure that the following 

requirements are met: [t]he class must be notified of a proposed settlement in a manner that does not 

systematically leave any group without notice; the notice must indicate that a dissident can object to 

the settlement and to the definition of the class; each objection must be made a part of the record; 

those members raising substantial objections must be afforded an opportunity to be heard with the 

assistance of privately retained counsel if so desired, and a reasoned response by the court on the 

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

record; and objections without substance and which are frivolous require only a statement on the 

record of the reasons for so considering the objection. Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 624-25 (9th 

Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Settlement Administrator (“CPT”) adhered to the notice procedures set forth in the 

settlement agreement and Preliminary Approval Order to ensure that notice was sent to class 

members. See Declaration of Huy Tran; Ex 1 Settlement Agreement. 

Settlement notice was mailed to 42 putative class members. Of the 42 putative class 

members, all have chosen to participate in the settlement, and none objected. Only one Notice had 

to be re-mailed two times and the Court finds that attempt to reach this class member were satisfied 

and her share will be redistributed. Under the terms of the settlement, that member will be bound by 

the settlement and will receive his or her share of the settlement amount. 

Under the plan, class members were not required to submit claims to participate in the 

settlement. Instead, the notice was mailed to them with the dollar amount they would receive and 

class members were given the Settlement Administrator’s name and contact information, provided 

an opportunity to be heard and to opt out or object to the settlement, and given follow-up notice 

regarding the settlement procedures. Overall, the Court finds that the notice procedures used here 

complied with the notice requirements of Rule 23(e). 

2. Fairness, Adequacy and Reasonableness 

Having found the notice procedures adequate under Rule 23(e), the Court next considers 

whether the entire settlement comports with Rule 23(e).

a. Strength of Plaintiff’s Case

Approval of a class settlement is appropriate when plaintiffs must overcome significant 

barriers to make their case. Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 848, 851 (N.D. Cal. 

2010). Here, class members are receiving 100% of the wages found owed. As to liquidated 

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 5 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

damages, there was a risk that the defense of good faith or non-willfulness would be shown as to 

both under the FLSA and under Labor Code section 203. Moreover, meal and rest breaks as to the 

42 class members would require their participation in the case and testimony that they did not waive 

rest breaks. As to the on duty meal period policy, Defendants had a viable argument of business 

necessity. While these challenges were not insurmountable, the pay our percentages weigh in favor 

of approving the settlement. See Moore v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., No. C 09-1823 SBA, 2013 WL 

4610764, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) (finding that the relative strength of plaintiffs’ case 

favored settlement because plaintiffs admitted they would face hurdles in establishing class 

certification, liability, and damages).

b. Risks of Maintaining Class-Action Status 

The Court also agrees that the putative class could face challenges in maintaining class 

certification throughout the litigation. While the class size was small and manageable, each class 

member would at some point be required to provide testimony as to their individual claims. If 

individualized issues “predominate,” class certification would not be maintained. See, e.g., Williams 

v. Veolia Transp. Svcs. Inc., 379 Fed. Appx. 548, 549 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of class 

certification where individual inquiries pursuant to Vinole would have been required). Further, the 

individual details of class members’ potentially distinct day–to–day work schedules could further 

challenge Plaintiff’s ability to maintain class certification throughout the course of litigation. 

c. Settlement Amount and Reaction of the Class 

The proposed Total Settlement Amount represents all unpaid wages, and a high percentage of 

four distinct premium wage and penalty claims. The Net Settlement amount represents about 

$210,000.00 of a potential exposure of about $650,000.00 or 32.3%. See Declaration of Tomas E. 

Margain In Support of Final Fairness Hearing at Par. 22, Exhibit 1. Based on the facts in the record 

and the parties’ arguments at the final fairness hearing, the Court finds that the 32.3% gross figure is

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 6 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

“within the range of reasonableness” in light of the risks and costs of litigation. See Ma v. Covidien 

Holding, Inc., No. SACV 12-02161-DOC, 2014 WL 360196, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (finding 

a settlement worth 9.1% of the total value of the action “within the range of reasonableness”); 

Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, No. 12-cv-06327 NC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88866, 

at *16 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) (granting preliminary approval of a net settlement amount 

representing 5% of the projected maximum recovery at trial). 

d. Stage of the Litigation

The Court notes that substantial analysis was conduction of the time and pay records by class 

counsel and nine depositions were taken. Moreover, the matter settled after a failed mediation with a 

renowned mediator and with the assistance of a magistrate judge. Moreover, Class Counsel are 

experienced in these types of matters. 

e. Reaction of the Class

The class reacted favorably to this settlement. No objections were filed and none of the 42 

class members opted out. The Court thus finds that this factor weighs in favor of a finding that the 

proposed settlement amount and distribution is fair and reasonable. 

Award to Class Representatives

Based on the declarations of Class Representatives HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, 

JOAN SOLIVEN, and ALEXANDER YALUNG, the Court finds that they are entitled to incentive 

awards of $5,000.00 each.

Individual Plaintiffs

The Court also approves the payment to Plaintiffs SHEILAH BALAGTAS of $7,3000.00 

and FELIX CADENAS of $12,700.00 for a total of 20,000.00.

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 7 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

“In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable 

costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Because the 

claims are based on California law, California law provides the basis for the award of attorneys’ fees. 

See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). Under California law, “the 

award of attorney fees is proper under Section 102.5 if (1) plaintiffs’ action has resulted in the 

enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit, whether 

pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons; and 

(3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award 

appropriate.” Press v. Lucky Stores, 34 Cal. 3d 311, 317-18 (1983) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1021.5. Based on the above criteria, the Court finds that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to attorneys’ fees. 

When applying the percentage–of–recovery method to calculate attorneys’ fees, 25% of the 

settlement fund is the typical “benchmark” for a reasonable fee award. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048-

50. However, the Court is persuaded by the billings and amount of litigation that 33%, which is less 

than the amount billed, is warranted.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons it is hereby ordered that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is hereby GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is hereby GRANTED. 

3. The Court approves the Gross Settlement Amount of $450,000.00 including payments of: 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $150,000.00; costs in the amount of $13,710.18; claims 

administration fees in the amount of $9,000.00; payment to SHEILAH BALAGTAS of $7,3000.00 

and FELIX CADENAS of $12,700.00, and enhancement of $5,000.00 each to HORACIO DE 

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 8 of 9
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 Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

VEYRA PALANA, JOAN SOLIVEN, and ALEXANDER YALUNG and a sum of $7,500 to be 

given to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). 

4. The Administrator is directed to make the above payments as well as the payments in the 

distribution to the class based on the “Re-Distributed Calculations Report” found as Exhibit 1 to the 

Proposed Order, Dkt. No. 170-1. Again, the amounts earmarked to Nieves Y. Brady were redistributed in a pro rata manner to the rest of the class but she is part of the Class whose claims are 

being adjudicated.

5. Consistent with the Agreement, checks not negotiated within 90 days shall be cancelled. If 

the funds total less than $20,000.00, they shall be given to the Katherine and George Alexander 

Community Law Center through the cy pres doctrine. If the funds total $20,000.00 or more, they 

shall be redistributed and re-mailed to the class in a pro rata manner after the administrator deducts 

the costs for the second mailing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

________________________

Hon. Susan Illston

Senior District Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:13-cv-05235-SI Document 172 Filed 08/12/16 Page 9 of 9