Naro v. Walgreen Co
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-03170
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Naro v. Walgreen Co., Judge Tigar preliminarily approved a revised class and PAGA settlement after addressing release, notice, and fee-objection concerns.
The ruling affects the proposed settlement class members and the employees covered by the representative-action claims, as well as the named plaintiffs and defendants. It establishes notice, opt-out, objection, attorney-fee, payment, and final-approval procedures, but does not grant final approval of the settlement.
What happened
In Naro v. Walgreen Co., Serena Naro and Trish Gonzales sued Walgreen Co. and related defendants. They alleged that the defendants failed to reimburse workers for replacement uniforms and violated California wage, expense-reimbursement, representative-action, and unfair-competition laws.
The court had previously denied the parties’ first settlement proposal without prejudice. In the revised proposal, the parties changed the named plaintiffs’ release language, provided class members 60 days to opt out or object, and allowed class members to object to a request for attorney’s fees.
Judge Tigar granted preliminary approval of the proposed class and representative-action settlement, approved the proposed notice and notice process, set deadlines for notice, objections, fees, and a final-approval hearing, and stayed other proceedings pending further order. The court did not make a final approval decision or rule on the proposed attorney-fee amount at this stage.
The detailed version
- Naro v. Walgreen Co · No. 4:22-cv-03170
- Jon Tigar
- July 8, 2025
Background
Serena Naro and Trish Gonzales brought this action against Walgreen Co., Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LCC, and Does 1–15. They alleged that the defendants required them to wear uniforms each shift but failed to reimburse necessary business expenses for replacement uniforms. The claims included alleged violations of California Labor Code section 2802, the Private Attorneys General Act, California Wage Order No. 7, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The plaintiffs filed the action on May 31, 2022. After briefing, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs amended their claims. The parties later engaged in discovery and alternative dispute resolution. The court denied the parties’ first motion for preliminary settlement approval without prejudice because of deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The plaintiffs then filed a second, unopposed motion for preliminary approval on February 13, 2025.
Legal standard
At the preliminary-approval stage, the court determines whether the proposed class settlement appears fair, reasonable, adequate, and free from improper collusion, and whether it falls within the range of possible approval. If a class has not already been certified, the court also makes a preliminary determination that it will likely be able to certify the class for purposes of the settlement. Final approval requires a later hearing and a separate final determination.
Reasons for approval
The court had identified three deficiencies in the first proposal:
1. Named plaintiffs’ release. The first agreement gave the named plaintiffs $10,000 incentive awards while requiring them to release claims more broadly than the claims asserted in the complaint. The court was concerned that the incentive payments appeared unrelated to any benefit or service to the class. The revised agreement kept the broader release but changed the language describing what the payments were exchanged for. The court found that this revision resolved the potential conflict of interest and that the broader release was within the range of possible approval at this stage.
2. Response period. The court had required at least 60 days after notice was mailed for class members to opt out or object. The revised agreement provided a 60-day response period, which resolved this deficiency.
3. Objections to attorney’s fees. The first proposal did not give class members an opportunity to object to the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for attorney’s fees. The revised agreement allowed a settlement class member to file a written objection with the court no later than 14 calendar days before the final hearing and to send the objection that same day to class counsel and defense counsel. The court found that this resolved the deficiency.
The court also had previously asked the parties to address a possible departure from the 25-percent benchmark for attorney’s fees from a common fund. The court stated that it would not rule on that issue at the preliminary-approval stage. The court continued to view the proposed settlement amount as likely reasonable, noting that $100,000 allocated to Private Attorneys General Act penalties represented approximately 3.3 percent of the maximum potential penalties.
Order
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. It approved the proposed settlement notice and notice process and set the following deadlines and events:
- Defendants were to provide the settlement administrator with class-member information by July 18,
- - The administrator was to mail and email the class notice by July 29,
- - Settlement class members were to postmark requests to opt out or objections by September 29,
- - The administrator was to provide the court with a declaration about completion of the notice process by December 29,
- - The final-approval motion and attorney-fee motion were due October 29,
- - Objections to the attorney-fee motion were due December 4, 2025, and responses to those objections were due December 11,
- - The final-approval hearing was set for January 8, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom webinar.
The court stayed all other proceedings, except those contemplated by the order and the settlement, and vacated all other deadlines pending further order. The opinion does not state that final settlement approval had been granted.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.