Ashleigh Blair v. David Bailey et al, No. 8:2019cv01849 - Document 59 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD by Judge John F. Walter. The Court finds that a Class Representative incentive award in the amount o f $7,500 to each of the Class Representatives, Ashleigh Blair, Adriana Hernandez and Jane Doe 1, is appropriate for the risks undertaken and service to the Settlement Class. The Court finds that attorneys' fees in the amount of $54 3,750.00 and actual litigation costs of $18,091.50 for Class Counsel. The Court finds that Settlement Administrator's costs in the amount of $75,000. The Court allocates $100,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, with 75% of the PAGA penalties, $75,000, to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% of the PAGA penalties, $25,000, to remain part of the Net Settlement Amount. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ashleigh Blair v. David Bailey et al Doc. 59 1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ASHLEIGH BLAIR, ADRIANA HERNANDEZ, AND JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DAVID BRIAN BAILEY, an individual; BOB MARTIN, INC. dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN’S CLUB (Westminster), a California corporation; BAILEY FOOD AND BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN’S CLUB (Anaheim), a California limited liability corporation; CDBM REDLANDS, LLC dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN’S CLUB (Redlands), a Nevada limited liability corporation; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, CASE NO. SA19-cv-01849 JFW (ADSx) Honorable John F. Walter Magistrate Judge: Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD Date: December 21, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 7A Complaint Filed: September 27, 2019 First Amended Complaint Filed: April 2, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set Defendants. 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL Dockets.Justia.com FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1 2 3 for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award came before the Court for hearing 4 on December 21, 2020. Plaintiffs were represented by Class Counsel Peter E. 5 Garrell of Fortis LLP and John P. Kristensen of Kristensen LLP; Defendants were 6 represented by Jeffrey A. Dinkin of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth. The Court, 7 having considered whether to order final approval of the class action settlement in 8 the above-captioned action pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action 9 Settlement and Release (“Agreement”) and the Addendum to the Settlement 10 Agreement (“Addendum”), having read and considered all of the papers and 11 argument of the Parties and their counsel, having granted preliminary approval on 12 June 15, 2020, having approved the Addendum on December 17, 2020, having 13 directed that notice be given to all Class Members of preliminary approval of the 14 Settlement and the final approval hearing and the right to be excluded from the 15 Settlement, and having received no objections and good cause appearing, 16 HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 17 1. The capitalized terms used in this Judgment and Order shall have the 18 same meaning as defined in the Agreement and Addendum except as otherwise 19 expressly provided. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Motion 2. The Court grants final approval of the settlement provided for in the Agreement and Addendum (the “Settlement”). 3. The Settlement Class consists of: All current and former non-exempt hourly employees holding the position of Entertainer (i.e., exotic dancer) employed by Defendants, or any of them, in the State of California, counties of San Bernardino and Orange, working at any of Defendants’ establishments located in Westminster, Anaheim, or Redlands, at any time during the time period from July 17, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement [June 15, 2020]. The -1- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 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 S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA Settlement Class, however, will not include any person who previously settled or released the claims covered by this Settlement, or any person who previously was paid or received awards through civil or administrative actions for the claims covered by this Settlement. 4. The Parties complied in all material respects with the Class Notice plan set forth in the Agreement. The Court finds that the Class Notice plan, which was effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to the Class of the nature and pendency of the Actions; the existence and terms of the Agreement and Addendum; the Settlement Class Members’ rights to make claims, opt out, or object; and the matters to be decided at the hearing on Final Approval. Further, the Class Notice plan satisfies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. Notice of the Settlement was also provided to the appropriate state and federal government officials in compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 5. The Court has determined that full opportunity has been given to the Settlement Class to opt out of the Settlement, object to the terms of the Settlement or to Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses and incentive award to Plaintiff, and otherwise participate in the hearing on Final Approval held on December 21, 2020. 6. The Court finds that the Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court therefore finally approves the Settlement for the reasons set forth in the motion for Final Approval including, but not limited to, the fact that the Agreement and Addendum were the product of informed, arms’-length negotiations between competent, able counsel; counsel for the Parties had an adequate opportunity to evaluate and consider the strengths and weaknesses of their clients’ respective positions; the Actions involved vigorously disputed claims, underscoring the uncertainty of the outcome in this matter and the risks of -2- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 continued litigation; the Settlement provides meaningful relief and monetary 2 benefits for the Settlement Class Members; and the Parties were represented by 3 highly qualified counsel who vigorously and adequately represented their 4 respective clients’ interests. 5 6 account the extent of the relief obtained in relation to the risks faced by the 7 Settlement Class Members in continuing to litigate their claims in the Actions. 8 The relief provided under the Agreement is appropriate as to the individual 9 members of the Settlement Class and to the Settlement Class as a whole. All 10 statutory and constitutional requirements necessary to effectuate the Settlement 11 have been met and satisfied. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court finds 12 that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and 13 to each Class Member. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003). The 14 Parties shall effectuate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the 15 Agreement and Addendum. 16 8. The Court approves the settlement of the Released Claims as defined in 17 the Agreement. As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, as defined in the 18 Agreement, all of the Released Claims of each Settlement Class Member who did 19 not timely opt out, as well as the Class Representatives’ Released Claims, are and 20 shall be deemed to be conclusively released as against the Released Persons. 21 Except as to such rights or claims that may be created by the Settlement, all 22 Settlement Class Members as of the date of the Final Judgment and Order of Final 23 Approval who did not timely opt out are hereby forever barred and enjoined from 24 commencing or prosecuting any of the Released Claims, either directly, 25 representatively or in any other capacity, against Released Persons. 26 9. The Court further approved the injunctive relief providing that as of 27 January 1, 2020 Defendants have converted all of the Entertainers at the Clubs to 28 employees and that absent a good faith argument regarding an applicable change in -3- S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA 7. The Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class taking into [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 case or statutory law, they shall continue to treat all Entertainers at the Clubs 2 performing topless, semi-nude or bikini entertainment as employees. 3 4 John P. Kristensen and Jesenia A. Martinez of Kristensen LLP, shall continue to 5 serve as Class Counsel and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary to 6 effectuate the Settlement. 7 11. The Court finds that a Class Representative incentive award in the 8 amount of $7,500 to each of the Class Representatives, Ashleigh Blair, Adriana 9 Hernandez and Jane Doe 1, is appropriate for the risks undertaken and service to 10 the Settlement Class. The Court finds that this award is fair, reasonable, and 11 adequate, and orders that the Settlement Administrator make these payments in 12 conformity with the terms of the Settlement. 13 12. The Court finds that attorneys’ fees in the amount of $543,750.00 and 14 actual litigation costs of $18,091.50 for Class Counsel are fair, reasonable, and 15 adequate, and orders that the Settlement Administrator distribute these payments to 16 Class Counsel in conformity with the terms of the Settlement. 17 13. The Court finds that Settlement Administrator’s costs in the amount of 18 $75,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and orders that the Settlement 19 Administrator distribute this payment in conformity with the terms of the 20 Settlement. 21 14. The Court allocates $100,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to 22 penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), with 75% of the 23 PAGA penalties, $75,000, to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce 24 Development Agency (“LWDA”) and 25% of the PAGA penalties, $25,000, to 25 remain part of the Net Settlement Amount. 26 15. All payments shall be made in accordance with the Order Approving 27 Addendum to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated December 17, 2020 28 (Dkt. No. 54). S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA 10. Class Counsel, Peter E. Garrell and John M. Kennedy of Fortis LLP and -4- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 16. Except as provided in this Order, Plaintiffs shall take nothing against 2 Defendants by their First Amended Complaint, and final judgment shall be entered 3 thereon, as set forth in this Order. 4 5 6 17. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment hereby entered, the Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation of the Settlement. 18. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree in a writing 7 signed by all counsel and filed with the Court to reasonable extensions of time to 8 carry out any provisions of the Agreement and Addendum. 9 19. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment, and 10 immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 11 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 23, 2020 Hon. John F. Walter Judge, U.S. District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS SANTA BARBARA -5- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL
]]>
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.
