NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGIE BEDOLLA; et al., No. 16-56621
Objectors-Appellants D.C. No.
2:09-cv-04266-DDP-AGR
v.
JEFFREY LEE ALLEN, on behalf of MEMORANDUM*
himself, all others similarly situated, the
general public and as an “aggrieved
employee” under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, INC., a
Washington corporation doing business in
the State of California; DOES, 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Objecting settlement-class members Margie Bedolla, Anthony Allen, and
Michael Alvarez (collectively, “the Objectors”) appeal from the district court’s
September 2016 order granting final approval to a settlement resolving Jeffrey Lee
Allen’s1 class-action wage and hour claims against Labor Ready Southwest, Inc.
(“Labor Ready”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.2
1. On remand, the district court conducted a “more searching inquiry” as we
ordered in 2015. Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218, 1223–25 (9th Cir. 2015) (Allen
I) (quoting In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.
2011)). It is true that the 2016 settlement agreement contains the same three
“subtle signs” of collusion as the 2013 settlement agreement. But this time, the
district court’s final approval order—and the transcripts of the four approval
hearings the court held before granting final approval—“provide adequate
assurance” that the district court verified the fairness of the settlement agreement
notwithstanding those three red flags. Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947.
1
This memorandum uses “Mr. Allen” only to refer to Jeffrey Lee Allen.
2
As briefing is now complete, we deny as moot the motion for summary
disposition. Circuit Rule 3-6.
2
First, the district court made express findings about the value of the
nonmonetary relief, as we instructed in Allen I. See 787 F.3d at 1225. That
valuation (between $6.4 million and $10.7 million), considered along with the
monetary relief, supports the district court’s finding that attorney’s fees of 27
percent of the settlement fund were warranted based on the results obtained.3 See
id.
Second, the district court considered several rounds of briefing and argument
on the release carve-out sought by the Objectors, and denied preliminary approval
to an earlier draft of the settlement agreement because it inadequately carved out
certain claims.
Third, the district court heard argument from the settling parties and the
Objectors on whether to honor the claims submitted in response to notice of the
2013 settlement agreement. The 2016 final approval order directs Labor Ready to
honor the non-redundant 2013 claims as Objectors urged, bringing the total class
participation rate to over 9 percent.
Fourth, while the district court did not make “express findings . . . on what it
considered to be a reasonable lodestar amount,” id., the district court did consider
3
Despite the Objectors’ criticisms of the settling parties’ expert valuation of
the nonmonetary relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting
this valuation, as the Objectors made no attempt to provide a different valuation to
the district court.
3
briefing and argument regarding the lodestar calculation of class-counsel attorney’s
fees, indicating that it considered that lodestar calculation in determining the
reasonableness of the 27 percent figure.
Altogether, on remand the district court held a status conference and four
hearings on the fairness of various drafts of the settlement agreement. The district
court considered the transient nature of the class, the difficulty of providing
monetary relief to the absent class members, and whether it would be better for the
class to deny approval and allow the remaining claims to go to trial. As the district
court judge who had presided over this litigation since 2009, Judge Pregerson was
particularly well-positioned to evaluate the negotiating positions of the settling
parties and the reasonableness of the resulting settlement. See Hanlon v. Chrysler
Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Judge Pregerson asked the settling
parties specifically and repeatedly about the three “subtle signs” of collusion
identified in Allen I and ultimately concluded that their explanations were
satisfactory.
Accordingly, the district court followed our instruction to conduct a “more
searching inquiry” into the substantive fairness of this settlement agreement, and
has “show[n] it has explored comprehensively all factors, and [has given] a
reasoned response to all non-frivolous objections.” Allen I, 787 F.3d at 1223–24
(citations omitted).
4
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the settlement
is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Allen I, 787 F.3d at
1222.
The district court properly concluded that the settlement as a whole provides
value to the class. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. In this case, unlike in Koby v.
ARS National Services, Inc., 846 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017), the settling
parties indicated that the relief afforded by the settlement has value to the members
of this particular class.4 And unlike in Koby, in this case unnamed class members
also received monetary relief, notice, and the opportunity to opt out. Next, even
assuming that the Cash Dispensing Machines’ removal provided no value to the
class, the settlement includes other, truly prospective nonmonetary relief—such as
Labor Ready’s agreement to post specific notices in its California branch offices,
and to train and audit its staff on compliance with labor laws applicable to
temporary workers—which the settlement in Koby did not, see id. Finally, training
employees on California labor law and auditing branch offices for compliance
constitutes more than simply “abiding by the law.”
4
Contrary to the Objectors’ assertion, the district court did not “find” that
the settlement contained no valuable nonmonetary relief; rather, it objected to the
settling parties’ use of the legal term of art “injunctive relief” to refer to
nonmonetary relief negotiated absent a court order.
5
While this settlement honors two sets of claims, where the first set of claims
executes a broader release than the second set of claims for the same amount of
monetary relief, this discrepancy is justified because the first set of claimants
affirmatively accepted the broader release terms by sending in a claim form
executing the broader release. And while the district court’s final approval order
does not explicitly clarify which release applies to settlement-class members who
never submitted a claim form, the district court specifically retained jurisdiction
over “all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation,
effectuation and enforcement” of its approval order and the settlement, so
presumably it can resolve any future disputes over the meaning of the “applicable
release” clause in its own order. The ambiguous phrasing of the order is not an
abuse of discretion.
The Objectors have not argued that the district court applied the wrong law
or relied on an unreasonable finding of fact in granting final approval to the
settlement with Mr. Allen and his counsel as adequate class representatives. See
Allen I, 787 F.3d at 1222. Particularly considering its six years of experience with
these parties, see Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in doing so.
AFFIRMED.
6