Craig v. Corteva, Inc.

Background

Jason Craig and Michael Ross brought a proposed class action against Corteva, Inc., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Dow Agrosciences LLC, The Dow Chemical Co., DowDupont, Inc. n/k/a Dupont De Nemours, Inc., Dow Inc., and Does 1 through 10. The complaint alleged four causes of action: failure to authorize and permit duty-free rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, violations of the California Private Attorneys General Act, and unfair competition. Plaintiffs sought unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, attorney fees and costs, interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief for the period from December 3, 2015, through the present.

After investigation and arm’s-length negotiations, including mediation with Steve Pearl on August 17, 2020, the parties reached a written settlement. Plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily approve a $3,800,000 class settlement, certify a class for settlement purposes, appoint the named plaintiffs as class representatives and their lawyers as class counsel, approve the proposed notice, direct distribution of the notice, and schedule a hearing on final approval.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval of a class-action settlement. The court explained that approval occurs in two steps: preliminary approval followed by notice to class members and a later decision on final approval. Preliminary approval is appropriate when the settlement falls within the possible range of approval, appears to result from serious and informed non-collusive negotiations, does not improperly favor class representatives or portions of the class, and has no obvious deficiencies.

The court found on a preliminary basis that the settlement appeared to be within the range of reasonableness and that the amount appeared fair and reasonable when compared with the probable results of continued litigation on liability and damages. The court also found that the settlement appeared to result from intensive, serious, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations; that the parties had conducted enough investigation and research to evaluate their positions; that class counsel had significant wage-and-hour class-action experience; and that the settlement did not improperly favor the class representatives and had no obvious deficiencies.

Order and Effect

The court found settlement certification appropriate for this class: all current and former hourly employees of the defendants who worked a 12-hour rotating shift at the chemical manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, California, from December 3, 2015, through preliminary approval of the settlement. The court appointed Jason Craig and Michael Ross as class representatives for settlement purposes and appointed Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, as class counsel. It also appointed CAC Services Group, LLC, of Eden Prairie Minnesota, as settlement administrator.

The court approved the proposed notice and ordered the settlement administrator to distribute the settlement documents by first-class mail to each identified class member at the member’s last known address. The notice informed class members about the settlement and their rights to opt out, dispute the number of workweeks reported by the defendants, submit written objections, and appear at the final approval hearing. If more than five percent of the settlement class submitted timely and valid exclusion requests, the agreement would become voidable and unenforceable at the defendants’ sole discretion, subject to the procedures stated in the order.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set a final approval and fairness hearing and set January 7, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. for that hearing. Settlement documents were to be mailed by October 4, 2021; written objections and exclusion requests were due December 3, 2021; and workweek disputes were due November 3, 2021. The order required plaintiffs to file a motion for final approval two weeks before the hearing. It did not itself grant final approval. If final approval was not granted or the settlement did not become effective under the agreement, the order would be null and void and the parties would return to their positions from before the settlement, as provided in the settlement terms.