Opinion
Case No. F-02-CV-5624 AWI (LJO), (Consolidated with CV-F-03-5600 AWI LJO).
September 1, 2005
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER HAMPTON LLP, A Limited Liability Partnership, Including Professional Corporations, DOUGLAS R. HART, Cal. Bar No. 115673, DAVID B. CHIDLAW, Cal. Bar No. 144681, GEOFFREY D. DEBOSKEY, Cal. Bar No. 211557, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant, JIM AARTMAN, INC.
JERRY N. BUDIN, Cal. Bar No. 88539, LAW OFFICE OF JERRY BUDIN, Modesto, California, Attorney for Plaintiffs, JORGE VASQUEZ, et al.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL APPROVAL OF STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the "Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations on Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement" (Doc. 105) filed April 22, 2005 adopting in full the "Findings and Recommendations on Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement" (Doc 100), hearings were held as scheduled at 8:15 a.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 and Thursday, September 1, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 of this Court. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively "plaintiffs"), appeared at both hearings by telephone through counsel for class representatives, Jorge Vasquez and Ruben Hernandez., Jerry Budin. Defendant Jim Aartman, Inc. appeared at both hearings by telephone by counsel Geoffrey DeBoskey of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton. The case was called at both hearings and the Court inquired whether anyone else in the courtroom was present to participate in the hearings. There was no response to this inquiry. The Court then inquired of counsel whether they expected anyone to appear at the hearings. Both counsel responded in the negative.
Having considered the "Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Accompanying Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities" (Doc. 121), and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Class Counsel's Declaration in Support of Final Approval of Settlement and Award of Enhancements and Attorney's Fees and Costs," (Docs. 119 and 120), and the papers previously filed herein, the Court issues the following Findings:
1. The Court finds that notice to the class was satisfied and timely mailed as previously ordered by the Court.
2. The Court finds that the consideration for the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
3. The Court finds that there were no objections to the proposed settlement.
4. The Court finds that the settlement was not collusive, and that the parties have engaged in sufficient discovery to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own and their opponent's cases.
5. The Court finds that the lawyers representing all parties were competent and experienced counsel, and that no party has been subjected to any undue influence in reaching the settlement.
6. The Court finds that the attorney's fees and costs requested by Class Counsel, Jerry Budin, in the total sum of $117,496.98 are fair and reasonable, subject to the "Notice Of Lien" filed herein by Green Azevedo.
7. The Court finds that the formula for disbursement of the settlement proceeds to the Class and the procedure for administration of that disbursement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable.
8. The Court finds that payments of $10,000.00 each to Class Representatives Jorge Vasquez and Ruben Hernandez for their efforts and services on the behalf of the Classes in this litigation are fair and reasonable.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DETERMINE that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, and GRANT final approval of the proposed settlement and related documents consistent with these recommendations.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.