Camilo v. Ozuna

Background

The plaintiffs brought a hybrid class action and collective action against Severo C. Ozuna and Don Vito Ozuna Food Corporation. They alleged wage-and-hour violations under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including overtime pay.

The plaintiffs’ asserted claims included overtime, meal-break, rest-break, waiting-time, and pay-stub violations. Based on interviews, defendants’ records, and Department of Labor records, plaintiffs’ counsel estimated potential damages for all claims at about $2 million. The plaintiffs also acknowledged weaknesses in the meal- and rest-break claims and stated that records and payment information could support a defense that employees were owed only about $500,000. The opinion does not state the proposed settlement’s total payment amount.

Earlier ruling and renewed motion

On the plaintiffs’ initial unopposed request for preliminary settlement approval, the court conditionally certified a Rule 23 class action and a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, designated the named plaintiffs as representatives, and appointed class counsel. The court reserved its decision on attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and service awards, and otherwise denied preliminary approval without prejudice.

The plaintiffs then filed a renewed motion. They supplied additional calculations addressing the court’s concerns. The court concluded that the estimated damages were roughly accurate, although it noted that the plaintiffs used somewhat different figures in their actual calculations.

Ruling

The court granted the renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. This was preliminary approval, not final approval. The court found that the proposed agreement appeared fair, just, reasonable, and in the best interests of the proposed class and collective members; that it fell within the range of possible final approval; that it was negotiated at arm’s length with help from a mediator; and that the record supported sending notice to the affected workers.

For settlement purposes, the court conditionally certified an FLSA collective consisting of current and former non-exempt hourly employees involved in tortilla and chip manufacturing who worked for the defendants between May 14, 2015, and March 19, 2019, and alleged the FLSA violations described in the complaint. The court also preliminarily certified a Rule 23 class consisting of current and former non-exempt hourly employees involved in tortilla and chip manufacturing who worked for the defendants between May 14, 2014, and March 19, 2019, and alleged the California-law violations described in the complaint.

The court designated Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo G. Sanchez, and Jose Manuel Lopez as representatives and appointed James Dal Bon and Victoria Books as class counsel. It appointed CPT Group as claims administrator and found that the proposed cy pres recipient, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, appeared to have the required connection to the plaintiff class.

Notice and settlement procedures

The court approved the proposed notice process, subject to corrections. The notice had to state that service awards for the four named plaintiffs required court approval, remove language suggesting that the named plaintiffs were releasing broader claims than other class members, and consistently spell Severo Ozuna’s name. A revised notice was due by October 29, 2019.

The claims administrator was directed to mail notice packets containing the settlement notice and a form for joining the FLSA settlement and releasing claims. Rule 23 class members who did not timely request exclusion would generally be bound by the proposed settlement, while FLSA class members who did not submit a claim form would not be deemed to waive FLSA rights. Class members could submit objections, and the parties were required to respond to objections before the final hearing.

The court scheduled a final approval fairness hearing for March 3, 2020. At that hearing, the court would consider whether to finally approve the settlement and whether to approve requested attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, expenses, and service awards. The order also required supporting fee papers to include time records, billing details, billing rates, and explanations for those rates.

Effect if final approval fails

If the court did not grant final approval, if the parties failed to obtain a final order and judgment, or if the agreement ended under its terms, the conditional class and collective-action certifications would automatically be vacated. The litigation would then proceed as though those certifications and related findings had never been made.