FR EA

Contract analysis

Clause-by-clause risk read on any document of the firm. Pick a contract, or open any document from a matter.

Contract analysis / motion-final-approval.docx
motion-final-approval.docx
1017-00004 · 16 clauses
High · 5 Medium · 1 Standard · 3
I. INTRODUCTION High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla ("Plaintiffs" or "Class Representatives"), by and through their counsel of record, Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC ("Class Counsel"), and Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("Defense Counsel"), hereby jointly move
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Filing and Consolidation On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes filed the initial complaint in this action (Case No. 22STCV38214) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action under the California Labor Code, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the Unfair Competition Law, on behalf of
III. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
III. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT A. Class Definition The Settlement Agreement defines the settlement class as follows: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2023, who were subject to AMA's automatic meal period deduction in the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system." The
IV. CLASS NOTICE AND RESPONSE High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
IV. CLASS NOTICE AND RESPONSE A. Notice Administration The notice process was administered by Meridian Settlement Services LLC in strict compliance with the Court's October 18, 2023 Preliminary Approval Order and the notice plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The details of the notice administration are set forth in the Declaration of Angela Truong filed concurrently herewith, and the key facts are summarized
V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL
V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL A. Legal Standard Under California law, a court must determine that a proposed class action settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable" before granting final approval. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801; Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128. The court acts as a fiduciary for the absent class members and must independently ev
1. The strength of the plaintiffs' case on the merits balanced against the amount offered Standard
⚑ Commercial term
1. The strength of the plaintiffs' case on the merits balanced against the amount offered in settlement;
2. The risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
2. The risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
3. The risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial;
3. The risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial;
4. The amount offered in settlement; Standard
⚑ Commercial term
4. The amount offered in settlement;
5. The extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
5. The extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
6. The experience and views of counsel;
6. The experience and views of counsel;
7. The presence of a governmental participant; and
7. The presence of a governmental participant; and
8. The reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. High
⚑ Penalty / liquidated damages
8. The reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Dunk, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801; Kullar, 168 Cal.App.4th at 128. No single factor is dispositive, and the court must consider the totality of the circumstances. As set forth below, each of these factors weighs heavily in favor of final approval. B. Factor 1: Strength of Case vs. Amount Offered The first Dunk/Kullar factor requires the Court to evaluate the
I. Factor 8: Reaction of the Class Medium
⚑ Notice / time limit to track
I. Factor 8: Reaction of the Class The eighth and final factor considers the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. This factor weighs overwhelmingly in favor of approval. The reaction of the class is among the strongest evidence of a settlement's fairness. See, e.g., Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245; 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.
VI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Standard
⚑ Commercial term
VI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS A. Attorneys' Fees Class Counsel respectfully request that the Court approve attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,916,175, representing 33.33% of the $14,750,000 Gross Settlement Amount. This fee request is made pursuant to the percentage-of-fund method, which is the predominant method for calculating attorneys' fees in common fund class action settlements in California. In Laffitte v. Ro
VII. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS
VII. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court approve the following service awards to the named class representatives: Marisol Fuentes — $15,000. Ms. Fuentes is the lead named plaintiff in this action. She was employed by AMA as a production coordinator in the Unscripted Programming Division at the Studio City facilit