Tollini v. CGI Federal Inc.

Background

Fred Tollini brought this class and collective action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against CGI Federal Inc., CGI Technologies and Solutions Inc., and identified defendant entities. The opinion does not describe the specific underlying employment claims in detail, but it defines the settlement class and collective as all current and former non-exempt individuals employed by a defendant in California between April 30, 2014, and May 27, 2019.

The court considered unopposed motions for final approval of the class and collective settlement and for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a class-representative enhancement. Class members received notice by first-class mail, and some also received notice by email. They had opportunities to participate, object, or exclude themselves. Three class members timely requested exclusion, and no class member objected.

Class Certification and Notice

The court certified the class and collective for settlement purposes only under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). It found that the class met the requirements for ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, and typicality; that common legal and factual issues predominated over individualized issues; and that a class action was superior to other available methods of resolving the dispute.

The court appointed Tollini as class representative and confirmed David Yeremian and Roman Shkodnik as class counsel. It also found that the notice program was the best practicable notice, satisfied Rule 23 and constitutional due process, and adequately informed class members about the settlement and their rights.

Settlement Approval

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved it in its entirety. It determined that the settlement resulted from good-faith, arms-length, non-collusive negotiations assisted by an experienced mediator. In reaching that decision, the court considered the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, the risks and costs of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class certification, the settlement amount, the stage of the proceedings and discovery, counsel’s experience and views, government participation, and class members’ reactions.

The gross settlement fund was $350,000. The fund included attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, claims-administration costs, a payment under the California Private Attorneys General Act, settlement payments to class members, and a service-enhancement payment to Tollini. The court approved $7,500 for settlement administration and a $5,000 PAGA payment, with $3,750 going to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $1,250 redistributed to participating settlement class members. The court found that the required PAGA and government notices satisfied applicable requirements and noted that no government official objected.

The order stated that neither the settlement nor the approval order constituted an admission of liability or wrongdoing, or a finding that any claim was valid or invalid.

Fees, Costs, Dismissal, and Effect of the Order

The court approved an $87,500 attorneys’ fee award, equal to 25% of the gross settlement fund, and found that amount reasonable under both the percentage-of-the-fund method and a lodestar cross-check. It also approved $12,815.72 in litigation costs. Any unused portion of the $16,000 allocated for costs was to be added to the amount distributed to participating settlement class members. The court approved a $5,000 service award to Tollini in addition to any recovery he might receive as a settlement class member.

The order provided that the action would be dismissed on the merits with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs except as provided in the settlement. Tollini and participating settlement class members released the claims covered by the settlement. The three people who opted out were Cynthia Colvin, Jimmy Padaoan, and Talia Christine Yage.

The settlement, approval order, and resulting judgment were given preclusive effect for released claims. Participating class members were permanently barred from bringing or participating in other proceedings based on those released claims. The court retained continuing jurisdiction over settlement administration, completion, and enforcement. If the order were reversed on appeal or the settlement were terminated or not completed, specified certifications and appointments would become void and the parties would return to their prior positions without prejudice to legal arguments they otherwise could have made.