Bryant Patton v. Midwest Construction Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv08580 - Document 92 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: JOINT FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter. The Court finds that a Class Representative enhancement award in the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff Bryant Patton is appropriate for the risks undertaken and service to the Settlement Class. The Cou rt finds that attorneys' fees in the amount of $212,500.00 and actual litigation costs of $49,576.71 for Class Counsel. The Court finds that the Settlement Administrators costs in the amount of $12,000.00. The Court allocate s $25,000.00 of the Gross Settlement Amount to penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, with 75% of the PAGA penalties, which is $18,750.00, to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% of the PAGA penalties, which is $6,250.00, to remain part of the Net Settlement Fund. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bryant Patton v. Midwest Construction Services, Inc. et al Doc. 92 1 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman (SBN 90058) 2 ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com Tatiana G. Avakian (SBN 298970) 3 tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 4 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 5 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 JS-6 6 TOJARIEH LAW FIRM, PC Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. (SBN 265492) 7 jft@tojariehlaw.com 8 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 100 9 10 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5533 Facsimile: (310) 553-5536 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bryant Patton, 11 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 12 MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP Brandon R. McKelvey (SBN 217002) 13 brandon@medinamckelvey.com Timothy B. Nelson (SBN 235279) 14 tim@medinamckelvey.com 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300 15 Roseville, California 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 16 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 17 Attorneys for Defendant Midwest Construction Services, Inc. 18 dba Trillium Construction/Drivers UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 21 BRYANT PATTON, individually, and on behalf Case No. 2:19-cv-08580-JFW-MAAx of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 22 23 24 Plaintiff, [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. John F. Walter, Courtroom 7A] v. MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, 25 INC. dba TRILLIUM CONSTRUCTION/ DRIVERS, a California corporation, 26 27 Defendant. JOINT FINAL JUDGMENT Date Action Filed: August 14, 2019 Trial Date: Vacated 28 JOINT FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class 2 Action and PAGA Settlement and Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and 3 Enhancement Award (Dkt. #88), Plaintiff Bryant Patton (“Named Plaintiff”) and Defendant 4 Midwest Construction Services, Inc. dba Trillium Construction/Drivers (“Defendant”) 5 (collectively, “the Parties”) hereby submit this Joint [Proposed] Final Judgment. The Court, 6 having issued its order granting final approval of the class action settlement in the above7 captioned action pursuant to the proposed Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA 8 Settlement (“Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”) and the Addendum to the Joint Stipulation 9 (Dkt. #89), and having issued its order granting approval of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ 10 Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award (Dkt. #90), HEREBY ORDERS THE FOLLOWING: 11 1. To the extent defined in the Settlement Agreement and Addendum (the 12 “Settlement”), the terms in this Judgment shall have the meanings set forth therein. 13 2. The Settlement Class consists of: All persons who at any time from August 14, 14 2015 through August 9, 2021, performed work for Defendant as truck drivers in the State of 15 California. 16 3. The Parties complied in all material aspects with the Class Notice plan set forth in 17 the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the Class Notice plan, which was effectuated 18 pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the 19 circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to the Class of the nature and pendency 20 of the Litigation; the existence and terms of the Settlement Agreement and Addendum; the 21 Settlement Class Members’ rights to make claims, opt out, or object; and the matters to be 22 decided at the hearing on Final Approval. Notice of the Settlement was also provided to the state 23 and federal government officials in compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 24 U.S.C. § 1715, and to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), 25 pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(k)(2). 26 4. The Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class, taking into account 27 the relief obtained in relation to the risks faced by the Settlement Class Members in continuing to 28 litigate their claims in the Litigation. The relief provided under the Settlement Agreement is 2 JOINT FINAL JUDGMENT . 1 appropriate as to the individual members of the Settlement Class and to the Settlement Class as a 2 whole. All statutory and constitutional requirements necessary to effectuate the Settlement have 3 been met and satisfied. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), and as previously set forth in its 4 Order (Dkt. #89), the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and 5 adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 6 2003). The Parties shall effectuate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 7 Agreement and Addendum. 8 5. As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, as defined in the Settlement 9 Agreement, all of the released claims of each Settlement Class Member who did not timely opt 10 out, as well as the Class Representative’s released claims, are and shall be deemed to be 11 conclusively released as against the released persons, as described in the Settlement Agreement. 12 Except as to such rights or claims that may be created by the Settlement, all Settlement Class 13 Members as of the date of the Final Judgment who did not timely opt out are hereby forever 14 barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any of the released claims against released 15 parties. 16 6. Class Counsel, Stanley D. Saltzman and Tatiana G. Avakian of Marlin & 17 Saltzman LLP, and Joseph Tojarieh of Tojarieh Law Firm, PC, shall continue to serve as Class 18 Counsel and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary to effectuate the Settlement. 19 7. The Court finds that a Class Representative enhancement award in the amount of 20 $5,000 to Plaintiff Bryant Patton is appropriate for the risks undertaken and service to the 21 Settlement Class. The Court finds that this award is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and orders 22 that the Settlement Administrator make this payment in conformity with the terms of the 23 Settlement. 24 8. The Court finds that attorneys’ fees in the amount of $212,500.00 and actual 25 litigation costs of $49,576.71 for Class Counsel are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and orders 26 that the Settlement Administrator distribute these payments to Class Counsel in conformity with 27 the terms of the Settlement. 28 3 JOINT FINAL JUDGMENT . 1 9. The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator’s costs in the amount of 2 $12,000.00 are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and orders that the Settlement Administrator 3 distribute this payment in conformity with the terms of the Settlement. 4 10. The Court allocates $25,000.00 of the Gross Settlement Amount to penalties 5 under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), with 75% of the PAGA penalties, which is 6 $18,750.00, to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) 7 and 25% of the PAGA penalties, which is $6,250.00, to remain part of the Net Settlement Fund. 8 11. This final approval order and final judgment of dismissal resolves all pending 9 claims against Defendant in the Litigation. Finding no just reason for delay, this final approval 10 order and final judgment of dismissal is hereby certified as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 11 12. Without further order of the Court, the parties may jointly agree to reasonable 12 extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 13 13. Without affecting the finality of this order, the Court shall retain exclusive and 14 continuing jurisdiction over the Litigation, the Plaintiff, the Settlement Class, and Defendant for 15 purposes of supervising the consummation, administration, implementation, enforcement and 16 interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and all other matters covered in this Judgment. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: December 7, 2021 20 John F. Walter United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 JOINT 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.
