Torres et al v. North Pacific Seafoods Inc et al, No. 2:2020cv01545 - Document 73 (W.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 60 Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Final Certification of Settlement Class. No person will have any claim against Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, any person designated by Class Counsel, or the Claims administrator arising from or relating to determinations or distributions made substantially in accordance with the Settlement or Orders of the Court. The Court appoints as Class Representatives Plaintiffs Pedro Torres and Jorge Hurtado Jr. The Court appoints The Arns Law Firm, Erickson Kramer Osborne, LLP, and Zwerling, Schachter, & Zwerling, LLP as Class Counsel. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Torres et al v. North Pacific Seafoods Inc et al Doc. 73 Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 1 of 6 The Honorable James L. Robart 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 PEDRO TORRES et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Plaintiffs, 10 ~OP(}Sfm) ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 11 vs. 12 NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PR:0POSliO] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 6 1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. 2 Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class, and Defendants have 3 entered into a Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve this litigation. 4 The Court, after considering the Motion and Settlement, as well as all exhibits thereto, the 5 record in this matter, and good cause appearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6 23(e)(l)(A), determines (a) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally 7 approved; (b) the Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (c) the Notice 8 to the Class was directed in a reasonable manner and full y complied with the requirements of Rule 9 23(e)(1 )(B ) and due process; (d) jurisdiction is reserved and continued with respect to the 10 implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement; (f) Plaintiffs are appointed Class 11 Representatives; and (g) The Arns Law Firm, Erickson Kramer Osborne, LLP, and Zwerling, 12 Schachter, & Zwerling, LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 14 1. The Court has jurisdiction over this litigation, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and 15 Settlement Class Members, and any party to any agreement that is part of or related to the 16 Settlement. 17 2. The parties have agreed to settle the above-referenced action upon the terms and 18 conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, for 19 purposes of this Order, the Court adopts all defined terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement 20 and subsequent Addendum to the Settlement Agreement. 21 3. The Court previously found that the Settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable, 22 and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. (Dkt. 52). The Court now reaffirms its findings 23 rendered in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement and, having considered the 24 factors set forth in Rule 23 (e)(2), and having applied a high level of scrutiny as required when 25 settlement precedes class certification, concludes that, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Settlement is 26 fair, adequate and reasonable. 27 28 [PROPO~,EDJ ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR 1 Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 3 of 6 1 4. The analysis under Rule 23(e)(2) requires the Court to consider a "list of core 2 concerns" before approving class settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), 2018 Adv. Comm. Notes. 3 The two procedural concerns are whether plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented 4 the class, and whether the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm's length. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 23(e)(2)(A)-(B). The two substantive concerns are whether the relief provided for the class is 6 adequate, and whether the proposed settlement treats class members equitably relative to one 7 another. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(C)-(D). 8 9 10 5. Rule 23(e)(2)(A) is satisfied because the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have vigorously represented the Class. 6. Rule 23(e)(2)(B) is satisfied because the Settlement was negotiated at arm's length 11 by informed counsel acting in the best interests of their respective clients, and with the close 12 participation of a mediator. 13 7. Rule 23(e)(2)(C) is satisfied because the relief provided for the Class is outstanding 14 considering that, accounting for the differing risks associated with the different facilities, the gross 15 settlement represents most of the total back wages and liquidated damages as estimated by Class 16 Counsel, excluding penalties, for Settlement Class Members. Moreover, the three-tiered settlement 17 provides a way to account for differing risks at various facilities while still maximizing payments 18 to Class Members based on the time they worked for Defendant. At the same time, the Settlement 19 avoids expensive, protracted, and potentially risky litigation. Of the 2,728 Class Members who 20 received Notice, none of those Members opted out or objected to the Settlement. The Court finds 21 that the positive reaction to the Settlement further supports the conclusion that the Settlement 22 provides adequate relief to the Class. 23 8. Rule 23(e)(2)(D) is satisfied as the Settlement treats Class Members equitably by 24 providing them recovery under the same three-tier formula, which takes into account the time they 25 spent working for Defendant and the specific facility in which they worked. Thus, while the 26 Settlement may treat each tier differently based on the specific facilities located therein, it does so 27 in a fair and equitable manner in alignment with the risks assessed by Class Counsel in connection 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR 2 Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 4 of 6 1 with prevailing at class certification and trial as to the facilities within each tier. Each Settlement 2 Class Member will receive a share based upon the number of hours worked and the facility where 3 they were employed. 4 9. 5 Members: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class All persons who worked for NPSI in Alaska State at any time from October 19, 2017 to March 31, 2021 as a Seafood Processing Employee. Settlement Class Members' individual payments will reflect all hours worked from October 19, 2017 through June 30, 2021. 10. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied for the certification of the Class for settlement purposes only. 11. Rule 23(a)(l) is satisfied because the Class consists of approximately 2,748 individuals, whose identities were ascertainable through Defendant's records, and joinder of all members is impracticable. 12. Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because common issues of law and fact underly the claims-specifically, Defendant's alleged failure to pay Class Members for time spent donning and doffing and Defendant's alleged false representations to induce Class Members to travel to Alaska for employment. 13. Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the Class Representatives' claims are typical of those of the Settlement Class Members. Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because the Class Representatives fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class. 14. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied because the questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 15. The Court finds that due notice was given in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 52), and that the form and content of that Notice, and the procedures for 26 27 28 [PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR 3 Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 5 of 6 1 dissemination thereof, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e) and due process and constitute the 2 best notice practicable under the circumstances. 3 16. The Court held a held a hearing on November 3, 2021 to consider the fairness, 4 reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement, and was advised that there are no 5 objections to the settlement from any Settlement Class Members. 17. 6 Adequate notice of the proceedings was given to Settlement Class Members, with 7 a full opportunity to participate in the fairness hearing. Therefore, it is hereby determined that all 8 Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Approval Order and judgment. 9 18. The Court GRANTS final approval of the Settlement. 10 19. Without affecting the finality of the judgment, the Court reserves and continues 11 jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs motion for service awards to the Plaintiffs and attorneys' 12 fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel. 20. 13 Without affecting the finality of the judgment, the Court reserves and continues 14 jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement, 15 distribution of payments to Class members, and this Order. 21. 16 No person will have any claim against Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, any person 17 designated by Class Counsel, or the Claims administrator arising from or relating to determinations 18 or distributions made substantially in accordance with the Settlement or Orders of the Court. 19 22. 20 Hurtado Jr. 21 III 22 III 23 III 24 III 25 III 26 Ill 27 III The Court appoints as Class Representatives Plaintiffs Pedro Torres and Jorge 28 [PR:Of'OS£D] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR 4 Case 2:20-cv-01545-JLR Document 73 Filed 12/09/21 Page 6 of 6 1 2 23. The Court appoints The Arns Law Firm, Erickson Kramer Osborne, LLP, and Zwerling, Schachter, & Zwerling, LLP as Class Counsel. 3 4 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this~ day of D c.v.---~. , 2021. 6 7 Hon. James United Stat s District Judge 8 9 10 PRESENTED BY: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Henry A very WSBA # 54086 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third A venue Suite 1030 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2054 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 havery@zsz.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [.P-R.-Ot'OSEB] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR 5
]]>
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.
