Jose Cervantez v. Celestica Corporation et al, No. 5:2007cv00729 - Document 202 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: The Court grants a Class Representative Enhancement award of $10,000.00, to be divided evenly between Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George Santos, Maria Nguyen, and Marina Flores. This request is just ified in light of the following facts: (1) Plaintiffs spent numerous hours conferring with the Plaintiffs' Attorneys, reviewing documents, preparing for and providing deposition testimony, interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, formulating discovery requests and responding to discovery; (2) Plaintiffs' efforts resulted in a favorable result for the class; and (3) Defendants do not oppose the request. The Class Representative Enhancement will be paid to Plaintiffs in accordance wit h the terms of the Stipulation. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Attorneys' request for an award of Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $625,000.00 and Plaintiffs' Expenses in the amount of $161,383.37. Plainti ffs' Attorneys' request for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs is justified in light of the following facts: (1) Plaintiffs' Attorneys vigorously prosecuted this case and achieved a favorable result for the class; (2 ) the legal issues were novel and complex; and (3) Defendants do not oppose the request. The attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid by Defendants in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.14. The Court approves payment of the Settlement A dministration Costs in the amount of$67,965.25. Ofthis amount, Plaintiffs' Attorneys have already paid the Claims Administrator $36,265.25. Therefore, $36,265.25 shall be reimbursed to Plaintiffs' Attorneys. The remaining $31,700.00 shall be paid to the Claims Administrator. (See document for further information) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jose Cervantez v. Celestica Corporation et al Doc. 202 ENTERED JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION 10 Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George Santos, Maria Nguyen, and Marina Flores, individually, on behalf of others 12 similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Case No. EDCV 07-00729 VAP (OPx) 11 13 Plaintiffs, 14 rAssigned for all purposes to the I1onorable Virgima A. Phillips] FINAL JUDGMENT vs. 15 Celestica Corporation, Adecco USA, Inc., 16 and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 19 20 21 A. In May 2010 the Parties! to this class action reached a Settlement. They moved for preliminary approval of that settlement, submitting a detailed 22 written Stipulation with attached Exhibits A through E. On July 6, 2010, the Court 23 preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement. The Court directed the Parties to 24 provide notice of the proposed Settlement to the Class Members and scheduled a 25 further hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement and request for 26 27 1 The definitions for all capitalized, bold tenus can be found in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Stipulation referred to herein as the "Stipulation." 28 IROIDOCS/442123 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Plaintiffs' Expenses are fair, reasonable, and 2 adequate. 3 B. On October 28, 2010, the Court held the Final Settlement Hearing to 4 determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be given final approval as 5 fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of each of the Parties and the 6 Class Members; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered as required by the 7 Stipulation and Exhibit E thereto; (iii) whether the Class Members should be 8 bound by the release of claims set forth in the Stipulation; (iv) whether a Class 9 Representative Enhancement award should be made to Plaintiffs as set forth in 10 Part lII.H. of the Stipulation; (v) the amount of Plaintiffs' Attorneys' award of 11 Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees not to exceed 25% of $2,500,000 (i.e., $625,000) and 12 Plaintiffs' Expenses not to exceed $170,000; and (vi) any other matter that may be 0 0 .... lO GIN a.. =5 CO ...J~~ ...J Glro GI > .- > .;:: E ro 0 13 relevant to the Settlement. James A. Kaster and Matthew C. Helland of Nichols 14 Kaster LLP appeared for Plaintiffs Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George Santos, 0 ()c:~ c: 0 ro rooo() i::'m GIm-c c: o ~:~ 15 Maria Nguyen, Marina Flores and the Class. Alexander Hernaez of Fox Rothschild 16 LLP appeared for Defendants. (0 c;:; 17 C. Twenty-two (22) putative class members timely requested exclusion 18 from the Settlement Class and no objections were filed with respect to the proposed 19 Settlement. 20 D. After reviewing the pleadings and evidence filed in support of the 21 request for final approval of the Settlement and the requests for awards of 22 Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees, Plaintiffs' Expenses and the Class Representative 23 Enhancement, and hearing the attorneys for the Parties, the Court finds, and 24 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 25 1. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Class Members and 26 Defendants, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to approve the 27 Stipulation (including all Exhibits thereto). 28 IROI DOCS/442I23 2 --------------------------------=--=:-=--=-=-== [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 2. The Stipulation, including the definitions applicable to the 2 Stipulation, is incorporated by reference into this Final Judgment. 3. 3 The Court finds that the Stipulation and proposed Settlement were 4 reached after arm's-length negotiations between the Parties, including two full-day 5 mediation sessions before an impartial, respected and experienced mediator; the 6 proposed Settlement was concluded only after counsel for the Parties had 7 conducted adequate discovery and investigation; and the Settlement of the Action, 8 as embodied in the terms of the Stipulation, is finally approved as fair, reasonable, 9 adequate and consistent and in compliance with all applicable requirements of the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the California and United States Constitutions 11 0 0 (including the due process clauses), the Central District Local Rules and any other 12 applicable law, and is in the best interests of the Parties and the Class Members. It) ..... Q)N a.. 3«; ...J~Sl ...JQ)co Q) >.>.~ E co 0 0 Uc~ coco COUlU ~Qj m-CQ) oc ~:~ 4. 13 The Court appoints Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George Santos, 14 Maria Nguyen, and Marina Flores as Class Representatives. 15 5. The Court appoints Settlement Services, Inc. as Claims Administrator. 16 6. The Parties and their counsel are ordered to implement and to (0 M 17 consummate the Stipulation according to its terms and provisions. 18 7. The Notice and the notice methodology implemented pursuant to the 19 Stipulation (i) constituted the best practicable notice; (ii) constituted notice that was 20 reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the 21 pendency of the Action, their right to object to or exclude themselves from the 22 proposed Settlement and their right to appear at the Final Settlement Hearing; (iii) 23 were reasonable and constituted due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons 24 entitled to receive notice; and (iv) met all applicable requirements of the Federal 25 Rules of Civil Procedure, the California and United States Constitutions (including 26 the Due Process Clause), the Central District Local Rules and any other applicable 27 law. 28 IROIDOCS/442123 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 8. The Action is dismissed with prejudice, without an award of fees, costs 2 or expenses to any party except as provided in the Stipulation. 3 9. The terms of the Stipulation and this Final Judgment are binding on 4 Plaintiffs and all other Class Members, except those who timely and properly filed 5 Request for Exclusion Forms and whose names are listed as Exhibit 6 to the 6 Declaration of Matthew Helland filed on October 21, 2010, as well as their heirs, 7 executors and administrators, successors and assigns, and those terms shall have res 8 judicata, collateral estoppel and all other preclusive effect in all pending and future 9 claims, lawsuits or other proceedings, including all forms of alternative dispute 10 resolution, maintained by or on behalf of any such persons, to the extent those 11 0 0 ... Q)N claims, lawsuits or other proceedings involve matters that were or could have been 12 raised in this Action or are otherwise encompassed by the Stipulation. It) 0.. 3 <0 -l~8l -lQ)Ctl Q) > 0- ~;§ E ()c~ c o Ctl Ctlw() ~Qj co.cQ) o c ~ :~ ... 13 10. Pursuant to Part III.B. of the Stipulation, Plaintiffs and all Settlement 14 Class Members are deemed to have conclusively released all rights, claims, 15 complaints or causes of action against Defendants, including Defendants' parents, 16 predecessors, all affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, agents, employees, and (Q (') 17 stockholders, arising out of, based upon or otherwise related to the Settlement Class 18 Released Claims, and forever discharging Defendants and the Released Parties 19 from all such rights, claims, complaints or causes of action. Such release of claims 20 is effective as of July 6, 2010. 21 11. The Parties are authorized, without further approval from the Court, to 22 agree to and to adopt such amendments, modifications and expansions of the 23 Stipulation and all exhibits attached thereto which (i) are consistent with this Final 24 Judgment, and (ii) do not limit the rights of Class Members under the Stipulation. 25 12. The Court grants a Class Representative Enhancement award of 26 $10,000.00, to be divided evenly between Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George 27 Santos, Maria Nguyen, and Marina Flores. This request is justified in light of the 28 following facts: (1) Plaintiffs spent numerous hours conferring with the Plaintiffs' IROIDOCS/442123 4 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 Attorneys, reviewing documents, preparing for and providing deposition testimony, 2 interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, formulating discovery requests and 3 responding to discovery; (2) Plaintiffs' efforts resulted in a favorable result for the 4 class; and (3) Defendants do not oppose the request. The Class Representative 5 Enhancement will be paid to Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the 6 Stipulation. 7 13. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Attorneys' request for an award of 8 Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $625,000.00 and Plaintiffs' Expenses 9 in the amount of $161,383.37. Plaintiffs' Attorneys' request for an award of 10 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs is justified in light of the following facts: (1) 11 Plaintiffs' Attorneys vigorously prosecuted this case and achieved a favorable 12 result for the class; (2) the legal issues were novel and complex; and (3) Defendants 0 0 10 ..... - QlN a.. ·S ..... co ...J~~ 13 do not oppose the request. The attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid by ...J QlIll QI > .- 14 Defendants in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. c: 15 >.1:: roos ()c:= I:: 0 III Ill(/)() ~Qj IDJ::QI () c: 14. The Court approves payment of the Settlement Administration Costs ~:~ 16 in the amount of$67,965.25. Of this amount, Plaintiffs' Attorneys have already l") 17 paid the Claims Administrator $36,265.25. Therefore, $36,265.25 shall be co ..... 18 reimbursed to Plaintiffs' Attorneys. The remaining $31,700.00 shall be paid to the 19 Claims Administrator. 20 II 21 II 22 II 23 II 24 II 25 II 26 II 27 II 28 II IROlDOCS/442123 5 --,-- =____ [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 15. Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment, the Court shall 2 retain continuing jurisdiction over the Action, and the Parties and Settlement 3 Class, and the administration and enforcement of the Settlement. Any disputes or 4 controversies arising with respect to the enforcement or implementation of the 5 Settlement shall be presented by motion to the Court; provided however, that 6 nothing in this paragraph shall restrict the ability of the Parties to exercise their 7 rights hereunder. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 01,2010 11 • ::-- f)., l' ~~ ~----- Hon. Virglma A:PhI1hps United States District Court Judge 12 0 0 .... Q)N 3(0 It') ~(I)~ ...J eli (tl Q) >.> '1: E lQ 0 (tl ~Qj • 14 0 co 13 01::E lQcnO 1Il£~ ~:~ co c;; 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IRO IDOCS/442 123 6 ------:-----:-=-=-==_------::::--::-::-::=--= [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
]]>
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.
