Arturo Salgado v. Land O' Lakes, Inc., No. 1:2013cv00798 - Document 64 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Recommending Denial of the 58 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/29/2015. (The Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed 11/19/2015, be adopted in full. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is DENIED.)(Gaumnitz, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ARTURO SALGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. LAND O’LAKES, INC.; KOZY SHACK ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-798-LJO-SMS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Docs. 58, 62 Defendants. Plaintiff brings this putative lass action against Defendants Land O’Lakes, Inc. and Kozy 17 Shack Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 226(a), 18 226.7(b), 227.3, 510, 512(a), 1194, and 1197, California Business & Professions Code § 17200, 19 and conversion. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which 20 Defendants did not oppose. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 22 On November 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in 23 which she recommended that the Court deny the motion. The Magistrate Judge recommended 24 denial because the proposed class did not met the commonality requirement for class certification, 25 and because the proposed settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, when considering 26 the disproportionate distribution of more than fifty percent of the class settlement amount awarded 27 as attorney’s fees, Defendants’ lack of opposition to the attorney’s fees award, and the fact that 28 any undistributed funds will remain with Defendants. 1 Plaintiff filed objections on December 21, 2015, arguing that the overall settlement is fair. 2 Plaintiff argued that the Court should consider the individual settlements entered into prior to the 3 negotiated proposed settlement as evidence of Plaintiff’s “success.” 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having reviewed the entire 5 file de novo, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 6 and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed 8 November 19, 2015, be adopted in full. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class 9 settlement is DENIED. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 29, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
