Roe v. Jose Torres L.D. Latin Club Bar, Inc

Background

Jane Roe brought wage-and-hour claims on behalf of herself and other current and former exotic dancers who worked for Jose Torres L.D. Latin Club Bar, Inc., doing business as Hanky Panky Club. The claims alleged that the defendant treated the dancers as independent contractors rather than employees and failed to pay compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law. The complaint asserted 11 claims, including minimum-wage, overtime, wage-statement, waiting-time, expense-reimbursement, gratuity, unfair-competition, Private Attorneys General Act, FLSA, and Redwood City minimum-wage claims.

The case began in state court and was removed to federal court on September 25, 2019. After discovery, the parties settled. The court had previously granted preliminary approval and held a final fairness hearing on August 27, 2020. No objections or requests to opt out had been received as of August 21, 2020.

Settlement Terms

The settlement covered 93 class members. It created a $135,000 cash pool for payments to class members, attorney’s fees and costs, a payment to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency for the Private Attorneys General Act claims, a service award, administration costs, and any payments to a charitable recipient under the settlement’s distribution provisions.

Individual settlement awards ranged from $78.32 to $4,464.21, with an average award of $811.83. Payments were based proportionally on each class member’s performance months during the class period. The agreement also required the defendant to offer employment status to each current or prospective exotic dancer, including an hourly wage and one logo costume per month while performing.

A class member who did not opt out and did not cash the settlement check would release the case’s claims except the FLSA claims. Cashing the check would release all claims, including the FLSA claim. The court also approved procedures for distributing unclaimed payments and approved the Saint Francis Center of Redwood City as the charitable recipient for certain funds.

Class Certification and Settlement Approval

For settlement purposes only, the court conditionally certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common questions predominated, that Roe’s claims were typical, that she and her counsel adequately represented the class, and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute. The court also certified the FLSA collective for settlement purposes only because Roe’s claims and the related employment-status issues presented common questions of fact and law.

Applying the required fairness review, the court found that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable and was not the product of collusion. The court considered the settlement’s value, the risks and expense of continued litigation, the discovery completed, the class members’ lack of objections, and the changes to the defendant’s business practices. The court approved the settlement and authorized distribution of the funds.

Awards and Final Order

The court reduced the proposed $10,000 service award to Jane Roe to $5,000, citing the hours she spent, the settlement recoveries, and comparable awards. Roe had spent about 45 hours assisting with the case, including meeting with attorneys, reviewing documents, identifying witnesses, and discussing settlement negotiations.

The court approved $33,750 in attorney’s fees, equal to 25 percent of the settlement fund, and $5,000 in litigation costs. It also approved $9,250 in settlement-administration costs. The court concluded that the fee request was reasonable and supported by a lodestar cross-check, which calculated counsel’s documented time at $50,189.

The final order certified the class and FLSA collective for settlement purposes only, approved the settlement, appointed Roe as class representative and Steven G. Tidrick and Joel Young of the Tidrick Law Firm LLP as class counsel, approved the stated fees and costs, and ordered the parties and the administrator to perform their settlement obligations. The court retained jurisdiction over settlement administration, enforcement, and related disputes.