Arroyo v. International Paper Company
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-06211
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Arroyo v. International Paper Company, Judge Freeman approved a class settlement, certified the settlement class, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Elisa Arroyo, the settlement class of California non-exempt hourly employees who worked for International Paper Company during the class period, International Paper Company, class counsel, and the settlement administrator.
What happened
In Arroyo v. International Paper Company, the court reviewed a proposed settlement for California non-exempt hourly employees who worked for International Paper during the period from January 27, 2017, through June 30, 2021. The class contained 3,690 people, two requested exclusion, and no class members objected.
The court found that the class met the requirements for a class action and that the notice was adequate. It found the settlement and its distribution plan fair, reasonable, and adequate, and found no signs of improper cooperation between the parties. The court approved a $5,000 payment to Elisa Arroyo, $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees, $30,764.05 in attorneys’ costs, and up to $22,125 for the settlement administrator, all paid from the settlement amount.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the parties to carry out the settlement. The court dismissed all claims asserted in the action with prejudice as to Arroyo and the class members, bound class members to the judgment and the settlement’s release of claims, and retained jurisdiction to supervise the settlement’s implementation.
The detailed version
- Arroyo v. International Paper Company · No. 5:17-cv-06211
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Elisa Arroyo brought this class action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people against International Paper Company. The proposed settlement class consisted of all individuals who worked for International Paper Company in California as non-exempt hourly employees during the class period, January 27, 2017, through June 30, 2021. The court had granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 28, 2022, and notice was sent to class members.
The court held a fairness hearing on December 8, 2022, and considered the settlement agreement, the parties’ filings, the record, and comments received. Two people requested exclusion from the class, and no class members objected.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a court must approve a class settlement and determine that the proposed class meets the requirements for class certification. The court found that the class satisfied those requirements. In particular, it found that joining the 3,690 class members individually would be impracticable; that common issues applied across the class; that Arroyo’s claims were sufficiently similar to those of absent class members; and that Arroyo and class counsel adequately represented the class. The court also found that common questions predominated and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the claims.
The court found that the class notice accurately described the material parts of the settlement and was legally sufficient. It further found that the settlement and its distribution plan were fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that there were no indications of collusion. The court ordered the parties and the settlement administrator to carry out the remaining settlement terms.
Orders and Disposition
The court granted final approval of the class settlement and appointed Diversity Law Group, P.C., Polaris Law Group LLP, and Hyun Legal APC as class counsel. It approved the following payments from, and not in addition to, the gross settlement amount:
- A $5,000 class-representative enhancement to Arroyo; - $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees to class counsel; - $30,764.05 in attorneys’ costs; and - Up to $22,125 to the settlement administrator.
The court ordered that uncashed individual settlement-payment checks be sent after 180 days to the California State Bar’s Justice Gap Fund. It dismissed all claims asserted in the action with prejudice as to Arroyo and the class members. The judgment and settlement were not admissions by International Paper Company of liability, claims, or wrongdoing. Judge Beth Labson Freeman retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to supervise, enforce, interpret, and implement the settlement and the judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.