Murray v. Scelzi Enterprises, Inc, No. 1:2018cv01492 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 23 Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement ; ORDER ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 RODERICK MURRAY, an individual, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 v. No. 1:18-cv-01492-LJO-SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 27) SCELZI ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. for 15 alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, California 16 Business & Professions Code § 17200, and for penalties under the California Private Attorneys 17 General Act, Labor Code § 2698. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class 18 action settlement, which Defendant did not oppose. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 20 On November 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in 21 which she recommended that the Court deny the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing 22 the motion to address the issues and concerns identified therein. The Magistrate Judge 23 recommended denial because the proposed class did not met the requirements for class 24 certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the proposed 25 settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, when considering the overly-aggressive 26 discounting of Plaintiff’s claims, the overbreadth of the class release, the allocation of thirty-three 27 percent of the class settlement amount as attorney’s fees, the seemingly excessive incentive award 28 to Plaintiff, and other issues. 1 The findings and recommendation were served on the parties and contained notice that 2 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days. No objections were filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having reviewed the entire 4 file de novo, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 5 and proper analysis. 6 7 8 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed November 15, 2019, be adopted in full. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement is DENIED without prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 16, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 13 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.
