From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caves v. Walgreen Co.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 13, 2023
2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023)

Opinion

2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB

01-13-2023

GLORIA CAVES and TAMIM KABIR, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant.

James C. Shah (SBN 260435) Chiharu G. Sekino (SBN 306589) MILLER SHAH LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs GLORIA CAVES and TAMIM KABIR


James C. Shah (SBN 260435)

Chiharu G. Sekino (SBN 306589)

MILLER SHAH LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs GLORIA CAVES and TAMIM KABIR

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter came on for hearing on January 5, 2023, on Plaintiffs, Gloria Caves and Tamim Kabir's (“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF 50] and unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Judgment in this action on the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) [ECF 32-2]. Due and adequate Notice having been given to the members of the Class, and the Court having considered the Settlement Agreement, all papers and proceedings held herein, and all oral and written comments received regarding the proposed Class Settlement, and having reviewed the entire record in this action, Gloria Caves, et al. v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB (“the Action”), and good cause appearing, this Court finds that:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have alleged claims against Defendant, Walgreen Co. (“Defendant”), on behalf of themselves and all current and former employees who work/worked for Defendant in the State of California as a Store Manager at any time between October 16, 2014 and August 24, 2020; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs asserted claims for: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to pay all wages when due; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to pay overtime wages; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (9) unlawful business practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs further asserted a claim that Defendant is liable for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) because of Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; and

WHEREAS, Defendant expressly denies the allegations of wrongdoing and violations of law alleged in this Action and further denies any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs or to the Class Members; and

WHEREAS, without admitting any liability, claim or defense, the Parties determined that it was mutually advantageous to settle this Action and avoid the costs, delay, uncertainty and business disruption of ongoing litigation; and

WHEREAS, this Court granted approval of the PAGA Settlement and preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement in this Action on August 24, 2020 (“Preliminary Approval Order”); and

WHEREAS, Class Notice was sent to the Class Members in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order; and

WHEREAS, subsequent to the distribution of the Class Notice, two individuals, Barbarito Ruan Vasquez (“Vasquez”) [ECF 52] and Michael Shaw (“Shaw”) [ECF 49 and 129], filed objections; and

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, Vasquez withdrew his objection, declaring that he, in fact, has “no objection” to the Settlement [ECF 126-1, ¶ 5], leaving only one objector to the Settlement; and

WHEREAS, a Fairness Hearing on the proposed Class Settlement, having been duly held and a decision reached, NOW, therefore, the Court grants final approval of the Class Settlement, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. For the purposes of this Order, the Court hereby adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Parties and Class Members and jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action.

3. The Court has determined that the direct mail Class Notice distributed to the Class Members fully and accurately informed all Class Members of all material elements of the proposed Class Settlement - including the plan of distribution of the Maximum Settlement Fund, the PAGA Payment, the application for Class Representative Enhancements to Plaintiffs, and the application for Class Counsel's Award - constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members, and fully complied with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable laws.

4. The objections filed by Shaw [ECF 49 and 129] are overruled.

5. The Court hereby grants final approval of the Class Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and orders the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to implement all remaining terms of the Settlement Agreement, including those pertaining to the distribution of the Maximum Settlement Fund and Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

6. The plan of distribution as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, providing for the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to Settlement Class Members, is hereby finally approved as being fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7. As previously held in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Class, for

Settlement purposes, is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and related case law and is defined as follows:

All current and former employees who work/worked for Walgreens in the State of California as exempt Store Managers (and classified under job code TMG, MGR, RMGR, MGRX, MGR, MGRB, and MGRSA) at any time during the Class Period [at any time between October 16, 2014 and August 24, 2020] and who do not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion, as provided in this Agreement, or who did not previously release the Released Claims under a separate agreement.

8. Attached hereto and incorporated into this Order as Appendix A is a schedule of all such persons who have timely and validly requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members requesting exclusion from the Class shall not be entitled to receive any reimbursement as described in the Settlement Agreement.

9. Based upon the Court's familiarity with the claims and Parties, the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class and hereby appoints them as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class.

10. As previously held in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Court appoints Miller Shah LLP and Edgar Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23. The Court finds that the firms fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class.

11. The Court approves payment of the Class Representative Enhancements of $10,000.00 to each Plaintiff, totaling $20,000.00, for their service to the Class, which shall be paid from, and not in addition to, the Maximum Settlement Fund.

12. The Court approves the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,500.000. 00 to Class Counsel, which shall be paid from, and not in addition to, the Maximum Settlement Fund.

13. The Court also approves the additional payment of attorneys' costs in the amount of $45,310.53 to Class Counsel to reimburse them for their expenses, which shall be paid from, and not in addition to, the Maximum Settlement Fund.

14. The Court approves a payment of up to $25,000.00 to the Settlement Administrator out of the Maximum Settlement Fund. Any portion of the payment to the Settlement Administrator that is unused will go into the Net Settlement Amount.

15. Any checks for Individual Settlement Payments that are not cashed within 180 days shall be transmitted to the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF).

16. All claims asserted in this Action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear his, her or its own costs and attorneys' fees, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement, as set forth above in this Order, and as set forth in any other Order issued in response to the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, which hearings took place concurrently with the hearing for this Order.

17. Upon entry of this Order and the accompanying Judgment, the claims in this Action and the Released Claims of each Settlement Class Member against Defendant, and against any and all of the Released Parties as defined in the Settlement Agreement, are fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the maximum extent permitted by law.

18. Upon entry of this Order and the accompanying Judgment, all Settlement Class Members are hereby forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties as defined in the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.

19. Each Settlement Class Member is bound by this Order and the Judgment, including, without limitation, the release of claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

20. This Order, the Judgment, the Settlement Agreement, and all papers related thereto, are not, and shall not be construed to be, an admission by Defendant of any liability, claim or wrongdoing whatsoever, and shall not be offered as evidence of any such liability, claim or wrongdoing in this Action or in any other proceeding.

21. The operative complaint in this action, the Amended Complaint [ECF 43], is dismissed with prejudice, and the claims against Defendant are released.

22. The Parties are authorized, without further approval from the Court, to agree to and to adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Settlement as are consistent with the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

23. Without affecting the finality of this Order and the accompanying Judgment filed herewith, the Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action, the Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members, and Defendant for the purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, Preliminary Approval Order, distribution of the Maximum Settlement Fund, the Final Judgment, and this Order.

24. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

SIMID

First Name

Last Name

26

Hafez

Rafeh

377

Jaswinder

Bisla

751

Reginald

Ables

548

Michelle

Mclemore

113

Raquel

Miranda

838

Ralph

Gonzalez

560

Salomon

Avalos

45

Daniel

Buck

829

Thomas

Chvala

125

Julissa

Carucci

637

Gloria

Lopez

85

Robert

Woods

532

Michael

Coffaro

882

Chris

Nelson

102

Yader

Zamora

333

Steven

Smith

635

Richard

Steffen

46

Chris

Green

597

Sergio

Zepeda

631

Greg

Kaufman

404

Kelly

Spurlock

288

Matthew

Murphy

248

Winton

Lau

735

Mandi

Barrera

688

Rafael

Hernandez

389

Israel

Tee

148

Moises

Zapata

620

Eric

Nau

823

Ashok

Chand

845

Tyng

Chinn

765

Jeremy

Puckett

412

Joanie

Rollins

436

Hunter

Richmond

334

Todd

Hayden

277

Louis

Alvarado

376

Laura

Squirek

86

Erick

Portugal

740

Jose

Cruz

816

John

Lorenz

747

Rebecca

Obrien

655

Tony

Choi

207

Robert

Silva

138

George

Konnick

489

Trisha

Clara-Aedo

140

Robert

Balestieri

442

Leo

Patane

31

Jean

Kuhn

321

David

Blake

711

Steven

Kuhn

381

Clifford

De Vera

784

Brad

Haggard

756

Kenneth

Fisher

3

Kelly

La Rue

216

Janet

Shaw

405

Sukhbir

Brar

396

Samantha

Bragg

462

Deborah

Abney

273

Greg

Mcswain

65

Robert

Scheven

311

Robin

Scantland

176

Kim

Wilcox

449

Carlos

Escandon

736

Sumeer

Thapar

700

Dhirendra

Kumar

495

Heidi

Murrell

601

Harry

Hung

431

Anthony

Giannini

269

Marlaina

Cline

819

Robert

Dumandan

370

Ramon

Rico

862

Jessica

High

285

Muey Liam

Saechao-Surigao

604

Thomas

Dillon

68

Nicole

Marin

272

Stacy

Luna

418

Sabrina

Lee

267

Erika

Carreno

54

Adam

Carr

600

Raul

Campos

769

Rosio

Castillon

393

Robert

Dai

443

Dianne

Hickey

120

Robert

Kong

152

Stacey

Lind

668

Shannon

Lee

599

Elizabeth

Maldonado

825

Katherine

Pearson

218

Kristopher

Pavia

849

Scott

Wolatz

118

Jose

Vargas

238

Nicole

Lerma

697

Alexander

Correa

889

Ashley

Parker

298

Jaime

Contreras

757

Addie

Beckett

146

Robert

Matuszak

145

Eric

Quintero


Summaries of

Caves v. Walgreen Co.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 13, 2023
2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Caves v. Walgreen Co.

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA CAVES and TAMIM KABIR, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 13, 2023

Citations

2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023)