Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 16, 2019

Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware Inc

Judge
Lucy Koh
Docket
5:17-cv-03828
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
12
Class ActionFee PetitionCivil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Raquedan v. Centerplate, Judge Koh approved a $5.45 million class settlement and awarded fees, costs, and representative payments.

Who this affects

Centerplate, the settlement class of California non-exempt employees covered by the settlement, class counsel, the named representatives Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan, and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

What happened

In Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware Inc, the court reviewed a proposed settlement for California non-exempt employees who worked for Centerplate between May 24, 2013, and March 31, 2019. The court found that class members received adequate notice, and no one objected to the settlement.

The court finally certified the settlement class and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Centerplate must pay $5.45 million. About $3.889 million was expected to be distributed among an estimated 9,951 class members, with an estimated average payment of $390.82. Class members who did not validly opt out are bound by the settlement and released the claims covered by it.

The court also granted the request for attorney’s fees, costs, and representative awards, but approved $1,362,500 in fees instead of the requested $1,816,667. It awarded $25,922.69 in costs and $5,000 each to Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered final judgment and retained authority over settlement administration and enforcement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware Inc · No. 5:17-cv-03828
Judge
Lucy Koh
Date
Dec. 16, 2019

Background

The court had previously granted preliminary approval of the parties’ class-action settlement and later approved mailing a corrected settlement-information sheet after the settlement administrator made material errors in the original mailing. The court then considered the parties’ motion for final approval of the settlement and the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and class-representative awards.

Notice, Certification, and Opt-Outs

The court found that the notices sent to class members in English and Spanish provided adequate information about the settlement, the right to receive a payment, the right to object, the right to opt out, and the right to appear at the final-approval hearing. The court also found that notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act and California’s Private Attorneys General Act were timely and adequate. No class members filed written objections or stated an intent to appear at the hearing.

The court finally certified the class for settlement purposes. The class consists of all non-exempt Centerplate employees who worked for Centerplate in California at any time from May 24, 2013, through March 31, 2019, excluding people who had already resolved all claims asserted in the action by settlement or adjudication.

The settlement administrator reported receiving opt-outs from 71 class members, including 16 that were initially considered deficient. Four of those 16 confirmed that they intended to opt out. The court found six additional opt-outs valid and found that six other class members did not intend to opt out. The court appointed Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan as class representatives and Setareh Law Group LLP as class counsel.

Settlement Terms

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and ordered it finally approved and carried out. Centerplate must pay a gross settlement amount of $5,450,000. The court stated that approximately $3,889,077.31 would be available for class-member payments, based on deductions for attorney’s fees, costs, representative awards, Private Attorneys General Act penalties, and administration costs. The settlement administrator estimated that 9,951 class members would be paid, with an average estimated payment of $390.82.

The settlement did not require class members to submit claim forms and did not allow money to revert to Centerplate. Checks that remain uncashed after 180 days will be paid to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Unpaid Wages Fund in the class member’s name. Class members who did not timely and properly opt out are permanently bound by the settlement and released the claims covered by the settlement.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Class counsel initially claimed a lodestar—the total of reasonable attorney hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—of $685,008 and sought $1,816,667, or one-third of the common settlement fund. The court found that the billing records included excessive, redundant, or unnecessary charges, including charges for copied telephone-appearance requests and routine administrative tasks billed in 15-minute increments. After counsel revised its calculations using 0.10-hour increments, the lodestar was reduced to $665,997.25, which the court accepted.

The court nevertheless rejected the request for one-third of the fund because it found no special circumstances supporting that percentage. It approved 25% of the settlement fund, or $1,362,500, in attorney’s fees. The court also reduced requested costs after finding that some legal-research costs were actually $199.12 rather than $5,503 and that other charges lacked adequate documentation. It awarded Setareh Law Group LLP $25,922.69 in costs and expenses.

Ruling and Judgment

The court granted the motion for final approval of the class-action settlement. It also granted the motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and class-representative awards, awarding $5,000 to each of Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan. The court approved $50,000 for settlement administration and $112,500 for payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as its share of the Private Attorneys General Act penalties.

The court ordered the parties to comply with the settlement, entered final judgment under the settlement agreement, and retained jurisdiction over matters involving interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the order and settlement. The court stated that the order constituted a final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The authoritative version

Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.