Stoner, et al. v. Contract Sweeping Services, LLC, et al.

Discussion

A. Provisions of the Settlement This case, as against Defendant CSS (hereinafter, “Defendant”), has been settled on behalf of the following class: All persons employed by Defendant in California as a non-exempt, hourly W-2 employee during the Class Period [February 8, 2019 through February 23, 2022] who performed street sweeping work in California pursuant to Defendant’s contracts with public entities, municipalities, and/or cities.

(Declaration of Taylor B. Graham in Support of Preliminary Approval (“Graham Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“Agreement”), ¶ 1.5, 1.12.) The settlement also includes a group of PAGA “Aggrieved Employees,” defined as, “a person employed by Defendant in California as a non-exempt, hourly W-2 employee who performed street sweeping work in California pursuant to Defendant’s contracts with public entities, municipalities, and/or cities at any time during the PAGA Period.” (Id. at ¶ 1.4.) Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $1,300,000. (See Memorandum, pp. 7:10–8:10.) The gross settlement amount includes attorney fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount ($429,000); litigation costs up to $8,261.40; a PAGA allocation of $10,000 (75 percent of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent of which will be paid to PAGA Employees as individual PAGA payments); a service payment of up to $5,000; and settlement administration costs up to $5,090. The Agreement provides that Apex Class Action, LLC (“Apex”) will serve as the neutral entity that will administer the settlement. The Court appoints Apex as the settlement administrator. The Agreement further provides that funds from uncashed settlement checks will be transmitted to Hire Heroes USA as cy pres recipient. The Court approves the cy pres designation. In exchange for the settlement, the class members agree to release Defendant and related entities and persons (not including Defendant SCA) from “claims that were alleged, or

that could have been alleged, in the Second Amended Complaint, including but not limited to (i) failure to pay all regular wages, minimum wages and overtime wages due, including without limitation alleged failure to pay prevailing wages; (ii) failure to provide complete, accurate wage statements; (iii) failure to pay wages timely at time of termination or resignation; (iv) unfair business practices, and any other allegations that reasonably could have been premised on the claims, causes of action or legal theories of relief described above or any of the claims, causes of action or legal theories of relief pleaded in the operative complaints or which reasonably could have been alleged therein (collectively, the Released Claims)....” (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.41, 5.2.) PAGA Employees will be deemed to release Defendant and related entities and persons from “all claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or for civil penalties that could have been premised on the claims, causes of action, or legal theories described above or any of the claims, causes of action or legal theories of relief pleaded in the operative complaints....” (Id. at ¶¶ 1.41, 5.3.) The release provisions are appropriately tailored to the factual allegations of the operative pleading. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.)

B. Fairness of the Settlement Plaintiff contends that the Agreement meets the standards for preliminary approval. (Memorandum, pp. 15:8–17:18; Graham Decl., ¶¶ 30–38.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the parties participated in mediation with Michael Mandel, Esq., on November 22, 2024, prior to which Defendant produced substantial pre-mediation discovery. (Graham Decl., ¶¶ 18–19.) According to the exposure analysis provided by Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s estimated total exposure for all claims is approximately $23,119,854.57, while Defendant’s estimated riskadjusted exposure for all claims is approximately $12,840,456.01. (Id. at ¶¶ 17–18.) The gross settlement amount of $1,300,000 represents approximately 5.6 percent of Defendant’s estimated total maximum exposure, which is within the general range of percentage recoveries that California courts have found to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel has explained the rationale supporting the settlement amount.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s written submissions and is satisfied that the settlement is fair and may be approved.

C. Service Award, Fees and Costs Plaintiff will seek a service award of $5,000. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration describing her participation in this litigation. The Court is inclined to find that a service award is warranted and the amount requested is reasonable. The Court will issue its final determination regarding the approved amount in connection with final approval of the settlement. Class counsel will seek attorney fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount ($429,000). Prior to the final approval hearing, class counsel shall submit lodestar information (including hourly rates and hours worked) as well as evidence of actual litigation costs incurred and settlement administration costs.

D. Conditional Certification of Class Plaintiff requests the class be conditionally certified for purposes of the settlement. California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes certification of a class “when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court ...” Plaintiff states there are approximately 157 class members who can be identified from a review of Defendant’s records. The Court finds that there are common questions regarding whether class members were subjected to unlawful conduct and that proposed class may be conditionally certified for settlement purposes.

E. Class Notice California Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subdivision (f), provides, “If the court has certified the action as a class action, notice of the final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the court. The notice must contain an explanation of the proposed settlement and procedures for class members to follow in filing written objections

to it and in arranging to appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections to the proposed settlement.” Here, the form of the notice is generally adequate subject to the modifications set forth below. It describes the lawsuit, explains the settlement, and states the settlement amounts, including attorney fees and payment to the named plaintiff. The notice informs class members that they may appear at the final fairness hearing to make an oral objection without filing a written objection. The following language regarding the final approval hearing shall be added to the notice: Class members may appear at the final approval hearing in person or remotely using the link for Department 19 (Afternoon Session), and should review the remote appearance instructions beforehand: https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/online-services/remote-hearings Class members who wish to appear remotely are encouraged to contact class counsel at least three days before the hearing, if possible, so that potential technology or audibility issues can be avoided or minimized. On the condition that the parties make the above change to the notice prior to its mailing, the notice is approved.

IV.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion for preliminary approval and sets a final approval hearing for December 16, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 19. Plaintiff shall prepare the order in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

- oo0oo -

5