Kulik v. NMCI Medical Clinic Inc

Background

The plaintiffs filed claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California wage laws, California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and related statutes. They alleged that hourly, non-exempt medical assistants, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners performed work outside recorded hours, including medical charting and paperwork, and that NMCI Medical Clinic Inc discouraged or refused overtime entries. They also alleged that the company later treated them as exempt from overtime laws.

The parties exchanged payroll and time data for 21 class members, used an expert and forensic accountant to develop a damages model, and participated in two mediations. They reached a settlement covering the claims in the amended complaint. The proposed settlement created a Rule 23 class, a Fair Labor Standards Act collective, and a Private Attorneys General Act group. Notice was mailed to 100 class members; one person requested exclusion, there were no objections, and 22 people opted into the federal collective, including three late opt-ins that the parties agreed to accept.

Settlement and certification

The settlement’s gross fund value was $875,000 and was non-reversionary. It allocated $20,000 to the Fair Labor Standards Act claims and $20,000 to the Private Attorneys General Act claims. Of the Private Attorneys General Act amount, $15,000 went to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $5,000 went to group members. The remaining amount was to be distributed among eligible class members based primarily on workweeks, position, and pay rate.

The court found that the Rule 23 requirements for settlement certification were met, including sufficient numbers, common issues, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class procedure. It also found the plaintiffs similarly situated to the federal collective members and certified the collective for settlement purposes.

The court found that notice was adequate and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It considered the risks and costs of further litigation, the settlement amount, the discovery completed, counsel’s experience, and the class’s response. It also found no evidence of collusion and concluded that the Private Attorneys General Act allocation met the statute’s 75%-to-the-state and 25%-to-employees division.

Fees, costs, and service awards

Class counsel requested $262,500 in attorneys’ fees, or 30% of the settlement value, plus $14,272.32 in litigation expenses. The court approved all requested costs but found the requested fee amount and resulting 1.95 multiplier too high for the case. It instead approved $236,250 in attorneys’ fees, equal to 27% of the constructive fund, and found an approximate 1.83 lodestar multiplier reasonable.

The court approved a $5,000 service award for Barbara Kulik and a $5,000 award for Mary Dunning Garofalo. It approved $3,000 awards for James Eskridge and Yadira Gomez. It also approved $4,495 in fees for Simpluris, the settlement administrator, and approved Teresa Bonilla’s timely request for exclusion.

Order

The court granted in part both the motion for final approval of the class and collective settlement and the motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and class representative incentive awards. It certified the settlement class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective, approved the settlement in part, appointed the class representatives and class counsel, and approved the specified fees, costs, awards, and exclusion request. The order addressed settlement approval rather than deciding the merits of the underlying wage-and-hour allegations.