[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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

JAY SMITH (CA Bar No. 166105) 

(Email: js@gslaw.org) 

JOSHUA F. YOUNG (CA Bar No. 232995) 

(Email: jyoung@gslaw.org) 

GILBERT & SACKMAN 

A LAW CORPORATION 

3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 

Los Angeles, California 90010 

Telephone: (323) 938-3000 

Fax: (323) 937-9139 

RANDY RENICK (CA Bar No. 179652) 

(Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com) 

CORNELIA DAI (CA Bar No. 207435) 

(Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com) 

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP 

128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 

Pasadena, California 91103-3645 

Telephone: (626) 585-9600 

Fax: (626) 577-7079 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID BERLANGA, BRANDON 

EHRESMAN, CHARLES GAETH, 

MICHAEL GONZALEZ, JOHN 

LANGLITZ, and CHRISTOPHER 

PALACIO, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated current and former 

employees, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC dba 

SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, CRI U.S. LP, 

CRI CATALYST COMPANY LP, and 

SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY LP, and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, .

Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC 

CLASS ACTION 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION 

DATE: January 18, 2019 

TIME: 9:00 a.m. 

PLACE: San Francisco Courthouse, 

 Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action came on for hearing on January 18, 2019. 

The Court, having considered whether to order final approval of the settlement of the above-captioned 

action pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement”), having 

read and considered all of the papers and argument of the parties and their counsel, having granted 

preliminary approval on September 21, 2018, having directed that notice be given to all Class 

Members of preliminary approval of the Settlement and the final approval hearing and the right to be 

excluded from the Settlement, and having received no objections to the terms of the Settlement, and 

good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set 

forth in the Settlement executed by the Parties and filed with this Court. 

2. The Court finds that certification of the following Class is appropriate: 

Current and former employees of any Defendant or any affiliate of a Defendant 

who worked as Operators at one or more of the following facilities: (a) Shell 

Pipeline Company LP’s terminal facility in Carson, California (the “Carson 

Terminal facility”); (b) Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US’s oil 

refinery in Martinez, California (the “Martinez Refinery”); (c) CRI Catalyst 

Company LP’s catalyst production facilities in Martinez and Pittsburg, California 

(“Criterion Catalyst plants”), during the period beginning January 19, 2013 and 

ending September 21, 2018. 

3. The Court hereby finds that the Notice of Settlement, as mailed to all Class Members 

on October 22, 2018, fairly and adequately described the proposed Settlement, the manner in which 

Class Members could object to or participate in the Settlement, and the manner in which Class 

Members could opt out of the Settlement Class; was the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances; was valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all other applicable laws.

4. The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to Class 

Members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine whether the proposed Settlement 

should be given final approval. Accordingly, the Court hereby determines that all Class Members who 
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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

did not file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement are bound by this Order of 

Final Approval and the Judgment. 

5. The Court hereby finds that the Settlement, including the Settlement Amount, is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate as to the Class, Plaintiffs and Defendants, and is the product of good faith, 

arms-length negotiations between the Parties, and further, that the Settlement is consistent with public 

policy, and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. The Court makes this finding based 

on a weighing of the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses with the risk, expense, 

complexity, and duration of further litigation. 

6. The Court also finds that the Settlement is the result of non-collusive arms-length 

negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class and Defendants, after 

thorough factual and legal investigation. In granting final approval of the Settlement, the Court has 

considered the nature of the claims, the amounts paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement 

proceeds among the Class Members, and the fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the 

Parties’ respective positions rather than the result of a finding of liability after appeal. Additionally, 

the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly 

grant preferential treatment to any individual Class Member. 

7. The Court further finds that the response of the Class to the Settlement supports final 

approval of the Settlement. Specifically, one Class Member has objected to the Settlement, and none 

have opted out. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement 

are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 

938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003).

8. The Court further finds that the Objection of Kim L. Kevan fails to present any legal or 

factual argument that the Agreement is not fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the objection 

is overruled. 

9. The Court also hereby finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards and applicable 

requirements for final approval of this class action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for the reasons 

stated in the Motion for Final Approval.
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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. The Court orders the Parties to implement, and comply with, the terms of the 

Settlement. 

11. The Court approves the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

12. The Court approves the settlement of the Released Claims as defined in the Settlement. 

As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, as defined in the Settlement, all of the Released Claims of 

each Class Member who did not timely opt out, as well as the Class Representatives’ Released Claims, 

are and shall be deemed to be conclusively released as against Defendants. Except as to such rights or 

claims that may be created by the Settlement, all Class Members as of the date of the Order of Final 

Approval and Judgment who did not timely opt out are hereby forever barred and enjoined from 

commencing or prosecuting any of the Released Claims, either directly, representatively or in any 

other capacity, against Defendants. 

13. Class Counsel, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, shall continue 

to serve as Class Counsel and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary to effectuate the 

settlement, including the submission to the Court of the Claims Administrator’s final distribution 

report, as well as all papers necessary to allow this court to evaluate the claims process and order 

distribution of the settlement fund to class members. 

14. Plaintiffs’ Counsel is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,937,500. The 

forgoing award is 25% of the settlement fund of $7,750,000. Plaintiff’s Counsel is further awarded 

reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses necessarily incurred in order to advance the litigation 

for the benefit the class in this matter in the amount of $19,971.25. These awards shall be paid from 

the Settlement Fund. 

15. In determining an award of attorney’s fees where the class action settlement establishes 

a common fund for the benefit of the class out of which the attorney’s fee is awarded, courts have 

adopted the percentage of fee calculation. Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat., Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480, 493-

94 (2016). The Court finds that a fee award at the Ninth Circuit 25% of the fund benchmark is 

reasonable in light of the factors to be considered, including: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risk of 

litigation; (3) the skill required; (4) the quality of work performed; (5) the contingent nature of the fee 

and the financial burden; and (6) the awards made in similar cases. See Barbosa v. Cargill Meat 
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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

Solutions Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431, 449 (E.D. Cal. 2013)(citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 

1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). 

16. In addition, the Court finds the fee award reasonable under the lodestar cross-check 

method. Laffitte, 1 Cal. 5th at. at 506; Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1043. In so finding, the Court has 

considered a variety of factors, including “the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity 

of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented.” Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc.,

82 Cal. App. 4th 19, 26 (2000); see Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998). 

17. The Class Representatives are each awarded an incentive, as follows: (1) Christopher 

Palacio is awarded $7500; (2) David Berlanga is awarded $6000; and (3) Brandon Ehresman, Charles 

Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, and John Langlitz are each awarded $5000. These payments shall be made 

from the Settlement Fund and are in addition to the Class Representatives' respective shares as Class 

Members. 

18. Plaintiffs shall also set aside $35,587.82 from the Settlement Fund to be paid to the courtappointed Claims Administrator, CAC Services Group, LLC. 

19. The Court allocates fifty thousand ($50,000) of the Settlement Fund to penalties under 

the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), with seventy-five percent (75%) of the PAGA penalties 

thirty-seven thousand five hundred ($37,500) to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency (“LWDA”) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the PAGA penalties twelve 

thousand five hundred ($12,500) being paid to Settlement Class Members who do not opt out. 

20. Defendants shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees, 

or for any other charge, expense, or liability, in connection with the above-captioned action except as 

provided in the Settlement. 

//

//

//

//

//
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION/Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC

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

21. Without affecting the finality of the Order of Final Approval or the Judgment, the Court 

retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action, Plaintiffs, all Class Members and 

Defendants for purposes of supervising, implementing, interpreting and enforcing the Order of Final 

Approval and Judgment and the Settlement. Nothing in the Order of Final Approval or Judgment 

precludes any action to enforce the Parties’ obligations under the Settlement or under this Order of 

Final Approval. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _ _________

 HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 United States District Judge 

January 22, 2019

HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESN

United States District Judge