Gomez-Gasca v. Future Ag Management, Inc.

Background

Moises Gomez-Gasca brought a putative class action against Future Ag Management, Inc., Elias Perez Chavez, Camarillo Berry Farms, L.P., Future Harvesters and Packers, Inc., and Blazer Wilkinson, L.P. The complaint alleged violations of federal and California wage laws and California’s Unfair Competition Law involving agricultural workers brought to pick berries under the H-2A agricultural guest-worker program. The claims included alleged unpaid minimum wages, reimbursement of employment-related expenses, and related wage violations.

The parties reached a settlement before formal class certification after mediation and discovery that included payroll records, time cards, and invoices. The settlement class consisted of individuals employed by Future Ag Management under Job Order Number CA-15279712, under H-2A visas, from May 15, 2017, through November 15, 2017. The court had previously granted preliminary approval and conditionally certified the settlement class.

Settlement Terms and Notice

The defendants agreed to pay $355,000 into a common settlement fund without admitting liability. The Camarillo defendants were to pay $175,000, and the Future Ag defendants were to pay $180,000. The fund covered settlement administration, court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, a service award to Gomez-Gasca, and payments to participating class members. Employer payroll taxes on the wage portion were to be paid separately by the Future Ag defendants as provided in the agreement.

After deductions, approximately $213,500 was expected to remain for class members. Payments were allocated pro rata based on each person’s workweeks during the class period, and the agreement provided that no funds would revert to the defendants. The agreement also provided a minimum payment of $50 and identified the Food Bank of Monterey County as the recipient of unclaimed funds. Class members could receive payments through methods including wire transfer, Western Union, Sigue Money Transfer, or Mexico’s Mexican Telegraph system; those residing in the United States could request a mailed check.

The settlement administrator mailed notice to all 88 class members, used additional WhatsApp and telephone communications, and maintained a settlement website. The deadline to object or opt out was September 22, 2020. No class member filed an objection or opted out.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires a class settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. It considered the relevant settlement factors, including the strength and risks of the claims, the amount offered, the stage of the litigation, counsel’s experience, and the class members’ reaction. Because the settlement was reached before formal certification, the court also considered whether the negotiations showed collusion. The court found that the requirements for certification of the settlement class had been satisfied and that the notice was adequate.

The court approved a revised allocation plan that increased payments for four class members who had worked six weeks or less. Their payments were raised to $868.24, using savings from a lower cost request and distributing remaining savings among class members on a pro rata basis. The court found the revised plan fair and equitable.

Fees, Costs, and Service Award

The court approved $106,000 in attorneys’ fees. It evaluated the request using the percentage-of-the-fund method, with the attorneys’ lodestar—the reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—as a cross-check. The court found that the requested fee, equal to 30 percent of the gross settlement amount, was reasonable in light of the results, risks, hours worked, counsel’s experience, and market rates.

The court also approved $8,622.41 in litigation costs, finding the documented expenses reasonable, fair, and adequate. It approved a $10,000 incentive or service award to Gomez-Gasca, based on his work for the class, the risks he undertook, his participation in mediation, and his communications with class members. The opinion states that he experienced a personal visit asking him to drop the case and stop causing problems, and that he devoted more than 50 hours to the litigation.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion for final approval of the class settlement. It also GRANTED the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards, confirmed the class representative and class counsel, approved the Food Bank of Monterey County as the cy pres recipient for unclaimed funds, and entered final judgment according to the settlement and prior approval order. The court retained jurisdiction over matters involving interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the order and settlement.