MUNOZ v. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>MUNOZ v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >MUNOZ v. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY<br /> OF LOS ANGELES</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 6/10/10;<br /> pub order 7/2/10<br /> (see end of opn.)<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> EIGHT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>TOM MUNOZ et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Respondents,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY<br /> OF LOS ANGELES<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent;<br /> <br/>__________________________________<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>GREG (TONY) GREENWELL,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Objector and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B215594<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles<br /> County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. BC 392263)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from<br /> an order and judgment of the Superior Court for the County<br /> of Los<br /> Angeles. John P. Shook, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> Righetti<br /> Law Firm, Matthew Righetti and John Glugoski for Objector and Appellant.<br /> <br/>Law Offices of James P. Stoneman II<br /> and James P. Stoneman II; Law Offices of Mark R. Haddon and Mark R. Haddon, for<br /> Plaintiffs and Respondents.<br /> <br/>Jennifer B. Robinson, T. Harold<br /> Pinkley and Tara L. Ferguson for Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/><b >SUMMARY</b><br /> <br/> Tom Munoz<br /> and Phillip Eichten filed a class action lawsuit against BCI Coca-Cola Bottling<br /> Company of Los Angeles (BCI),<br /> seeking damages and penalties for<br /> allegedly unpaid overtime wages, missed meal and rest period wages, and other<br /> Labor Code violations and unfair business practices. The proposed class consisted of production<br /> supervisors and merchandising supervisors who were allegedly misclassified by<br /> BCI as exempt employees. After mediation<br /> before a respected mediator, the parties agreed to settle the matter for $1.1<br /> million. Notice of the proposed<br /> settlement elicited one objection. Two<br /> of the 188 class members opted out of the class and 142 submitted valid claim<br /> forms, so that the average net payment to each class member would be about<br /> $4,300. The trial court found the<br /> settlement fair and reasonable.<br /> <br/> The<br /> objector, Greg (Tony) Greenwell, appeals. <br /> He argues the trial court abused its discretion in approving the<br /> settlement, principally because the parties did not provide the court with the<br /> information necessary to make a finding that the settlement was reasonable and<br /> fair. We find no merit in Greenwell's<br /> contentions and affirm the trial court's order approving the settlement.<br /> <br/><b<br /> >FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><br /> <br/> In June<br /> 2008, Munoz and Eichten (collectively, Munoz) filed a class action complaint<br /> against BCI. Munoz asserted causes of<br /> action for failure to pay overtime wages, waiting time penalties (penalties for<br /> late payment of wages to terminated employees), failure to provide or authorize<br /> meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,<br /> and unfair business practices. The<br /> proposed class consisted of persons employed by BCI in a salaried position as<br /> production supervisors or merchandising supervisors in the state of California<br /> at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the<br /> complaint. Central to Munoz's action was<br /> the claim that production and merchandising supervisors were intentionally<br /> misclassified as exempt employees by BCI, which used the misclassification<br /> scheme to justify failure to pay overtime wages and provide meal and rest<br /> periods to those employees. <br /> <br/> The Munoz<br /> class action followed earlier class action litigation against BCI, prosecuted<br /> by the same counsel representing Munoz in this case (and defended by the same<br /> counsel representing BCI here), styled <i >Costanza<br /> v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles </i>(<i >Costanza</i>)<i >. </i>The <i >Costanza<br /> </i>class action, filed in April 2006, asserted the same causes of actions as<br /> in this case, and initially defined the class as all persons employed by BCI as<br /> salaried supervisors in California. By the time of the fifth amended complaint<br /> (filed May 3, 2007), the <i >Costanza </i>class<br /> was refined to consist of full-service supervisors, warehouse supervisors, and<br /> delivery (or distribution) supervisors, and no longer included production or<br /> merchandising supervisors. <br /> <br/>Discovery conducted in the <i<br /> >Costanza </i>litigation before the class was<br /> narrowed included detailed analyses of the job duties of numerous supervisory<br /> positions, including the production supervisor and merchandising supervisor<br /> positions that are at issue in this case.<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup> BCI's discovery answers identified 20<br /> different job duties performed by some or all production supervisors, and 18<br /> different job duties performed by some or all merchandising supervisors. BCI's answers also indicated that the job<br /> duties and time spent performing each of the duties varied from supervisor to<br /> supervisor and from week to week, as well as by facility and season. The class representative for the production<br /> supervisor position in the <i >Costanza </i>case<br /> also responded to BCI's requests for information relating to his claims for<br /> unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and so on. <br /> <br/> The <i >Costanza<br /> </i>case, with 377 class members, was settled in November 2007, with BCI paying<br /> $2.25 million. No one opted out or<br /> objected, and final approval by the trial court was granted March 18, 2008. <br /> <br/>Several months later, on June 9, 2008, this case was filed,<br /> asserting the same causes of action as in <i >Costanza</i>. Some discovery was conducted: BCI propounded form interrogatories and<br /> requests for production of documents to Munoz and Eichten, and special interrogatories<br /> to Munoz, and verified responses were provided; Munoz propounded requests for<br /> admission and form interrogatories to BCI and BCI provided verified<br /> responses. BCI obtained declarations<br /> from 30 class members from several California<br /> facilities. These declarations described<br /> the declarant's job duties; amounts of time spent performing various duties;<br /> his or her authority (or not) to hire, fire, or discipline; the number of hours<br /> he or she worked each week and each day; and whether or not he or she took meal<br /> and rest breaks. On November 5, 2008, BCI produced payroll data for<br /> each production supervisor and merchandising supervisor during the relevant<br /> time period. <br /> <br/>On November 15, 2008, the parties<br /> participated in a mediation (with the same mediator who conducted the <i<br /> >Costanza </i>mediation); the mediation was<br /> unsuccessful, but the parties continued to work with the mediator and agreed to<br /> settlement terms on December 1, 2008: <br /> $1.1 million (none of which would revert to BCI if unclaimed, but rather<br /> would be distributed pro rata to class members who made claims), from which<br /> deductions would be made for attorney fees (30 percent), $10,000 in incentive<br /> awards for the class representatives ($5,000 each), costs (up to $10,000), and<br /> administrative costs. <br /> <br/> The parties<br /> moved for preliminary approval of the settlement on December 15, 2008. A supporting declaration from class counsel<br /> (James P. Stoneman) described his qualifications and experience in employment<br /> and class action matters, and indicated there were â€