Gudelia Santos et al v. Noble Management Group-California LLC et al, No. 2:2010cv02594 - Document 57 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Related to: MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 51 , MOTION to Certify Class MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 55 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (rne)

Download PDF
Gudelia Santos et al v. Noble Management Group-California LLC et al Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JS 6 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Case No.: 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly CLASS ACTION situated, ORDER: Plaintiff, 1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; vs. 2. FINALLY APPROVING NOBLE MANAGEMENT GROUPPROPOSED AMENDED CALIFORNIA, LLC; NOBLE SETTLEMENT; INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; NOBLE 3. AWARDING FEES AND MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; and COSTS; AND, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 4. ENTERING JUDGMENT Defendants. NOTE CHANGES BY COURT Date Action Filed: February 25, 2010 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 1 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Plaintiffs GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR (“Plaintiffs”) 3 and Defendant NOBLE MANAGEMENT GROUP-CALIFORNIA, LLC 4 (“Defendant”) have reached terms of settlement for a putative class action. 5 On June 24, 2011, this Court (1) certified a class for settlement purposes, (2) 6 preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed class action settlement as fair, 7 reasonable, and adequate, and (3) authorized notice to the settlement class of the 8 terms of the proposed settlement. 9 Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for final approval of a class action 10 settlement of the claims asserted against Defendant in this action, memorialized in 11 the Joint Stipulation Of Class Action Settlement And Release Of Claims 12 (“Settlement Agreement”) (see October 11, 2011 Declaration of H. Scott Leviant In 13 Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement, at 14 Exh. 1). The Parties subsequently modified the release language set forth in the 15 Settlement Agreement (see, October 11, 2011 Declaration of H. Scott Leviant In 16 Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement, at 17 Exh. 2) (“First Amendment to Settlement Agreement”). 18 The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties stipulate to certification 19 of a Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement is conditioned 20 on, among other things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized terms in this Order have 21 the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement unless indicated otherwise. 22 After reviewing the Settlement Agreement, the First Amendment to 23 Settlement Agreement, the Revised Class Notice, the Declarations of Counsel 24 regarding administration and valuation of the settlement and other related 25 documents, and having heard the argument of Counsel for the respective Parties, IT 26 IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 27 28 1. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of a settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Page 2 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because the proposed Class is so numerous 2 that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact 3 common to the Class, the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class; 4 and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The 5 requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied because questions of law or fact common 6 to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 7 Members. 8 2. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement as it 9 meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement falls within the 10 range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the 11 product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and treats all Class Members 12 fairly. The Court further finds that the Parties have conducted more than adequate 13 investigation and research, and the attorneys for the Parties are able to reasonably 14 evaluate their respective positions. The Court also finds that settlement at this time 15 will avoid additional substantial costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that 16 would be presented by the further prosecution of the action. The Court has 17 reviewed the monetary recovery being granted as part of the settlement and 18 recognizes the value accruing to the Settlement Class Members. The Court also 19 finds that no objections were submitted and no requests for exclusion were 20 received. 21 3. The Parties’ notice plan was constitutionally sound because individual 22 notices were mailed to all Class Members whose identities are known to the Parties, 23 and such notice was the best notice practicable. The Class Notice was sufficient to 24 inform Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the 25 Settlement, their rights to object to the Settlement, their right to receive a payment 26 under the Settlement or elect not to participate in the Settlement, and the processes 27 for doing so. The distribution of the Class Notice directed to the Settlement Class 28 Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement has been completed in Page 3 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 substantial conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Notice provided 2 due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, 3 including the proposed settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, 4 to all persons entitled to such notice. The Class Notice fully satisfied the 5 requirements of due process, having been sent to all Settlement Class Members 6 who could be identified through reasonable effort, and was the best notice 7 practicable under the circumstances. 8 9 4. The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: 10 All room attendants employed in the State of California by 11 Defendant at any time from February 25, 2006 through September 10, 12 2010. 13 5. Class Members are bound by the Settlement unless they submitted a 14 timely and valid written request to be excluded from the Settlement. The Court 15 orders that Settlement Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from 16 the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement have released those claims 17 against Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 18 6. Having received no objections, and the time for submitting such 19 objections having past, the Court finds that no valid objections have been submitted 20 and no objections will be considered by the Court. 21 7. The Court orders that Settlement Class Members who did not timely 22 object to the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement are barred from 23 prosecuting or pursuing any appeal of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval to 24 the Settlement. 25 8. Plaintiffs GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR are 26 appointed the Class Representatives. Dennis F. Moss, H. Scott Leviant and Linh 27 Hua of Spiro Moss LLP and Joseph Lavi and Nick Ebrahimian of Lavi & 28 Ebrahimian LLP are appointed Class Counsel. Page 4 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 9. The Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is not an 2 admission by Defendant nor is this Order a finding of the validity of any claims in 3 the lawsuit or of any wrongdoing by Defendant. Neither this Order, the Settlement 4 Agreement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out 5 the terms of the Settlement Agreement, may be construed as, or may be used as an 6 admission by or against Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatever. 7 10. The previously-filed Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, and 8 Costs was filed so as to satisfy the notice and objection opportunity required by In 9 re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). 10 11. The Court finds that Class Counsel has represented Plaintiffs on a 11 contingent-fee basis, and their efforts resulted in a reasonable recovery for the 12 Class. Accordingly, the Court grants an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the 13 total amount of $7,441.25, to be paid to Class Counsel according to the terms of the 14 JOINT STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF 15 CLAIMS. The Court also finds that: (a) 16 Although Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide sufficient 17 information to support the reasonableness of the hours or hourly 18 rate claimed, based on its own experience and knowledge of rates 19 in the community, the attorney’s fees requested are reasonable; (b) 20 action alleged in this action; 21 (c) 22 23 Class Counsel has had substantial experience with the causes of 12. Class Counsel assumed risk when agreeing to litigate this matter. The Court finds that GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA 24 TOVAR provided services to the Class. Despite the Court’s request, they provided 25 no details of the time or effort expended. They were no longer employed by 26 Defendant at the time the suit was filed, and do not attribute any lack of 27 employment to the filing or prosecution of the suit. The release provided by the 28 Class Representatives, however, is broader than that applicable to Class Members. Page 5 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 Accordingly, the Court awards enhancement payments of $ 1,750, to be paid to 2 GUDELIA SANTOS and BERNARDINA TOVAR according to the terms of the 3 Settlement Agreement. 4 5 6 13. The Court directs that the Clerk of the Court enter the Court’s Order as a Final Judgment. 14. The Court orders that, without affecting the finality of the Final 7 Judgment, it reserves continuing jurisdiction over the parties for the purposes of 8 implementing, enforcing and administering the Settlement or enforcing the terms of 9 the Judgment. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11/14/11 12 13 14 15 Dated: DALE S. FISCHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 Case No. 2:10-cv-02594-DSF-VBKx ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.