Rodriguez v. Covidien LP, et al.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service.

12 Rodriguez v. Covidien LP, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA et al. Settlement

2024-01394865 The court has reviewed and considered the papers filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a $1,610,000 class action and PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments:

1. Plaintiff filed an overlong brief without obtaining leave of court. Plaintiff should not do so again. Failure to comply with applicable court rules may result in sanctions and/or an order striking the overlong brief.

As to the settlement:

2. The settlement agreement is between plaintiff and defendant Covidien LP. How and when does plaintiff propose to resolve the case against defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc.”

3. Plaintiff should state her total compensation anticipated to be received (including for any individual claims and excluding any enhancement award). Plaintiff should also submit a copy of her individual settlement agreement.

4. The “Released Class Claims” in paragraph 1.38 should be revised as follows: (i) the word “reasonably” should be inserted in the second sentence after “or” and before “could have been alleged”; and (ii) in the second sentence, the phrase “of the First Amended Class Action and Representative Action Complaint” should be replaced with “alleged in the First Amended Class Action and Representative Action Complaint.”

5. In the first sentence of the “Released PAGA Claims” in paragraph 1.39 the redundant phrase “for civil penalties available under PAGA” should be removed. The second sentence is overbroad and unclear and should be removed. In addition, the phrase “PAGA Employees” does not appear to be defined in the settlement agreement and should be replaced with a term (e.g., Aggrieved Employees) that is defined in the agreement.

6. The “Released Parties” provision in paragraph 1.40 is overbroad as it includes unrelated, unidentified and/or ambiguous third parties such as “affiliates” and “sponsored employee benefit plans, and their respective successors and predecessors in interest, all of their respective officers, directors, employees, administrators, fiduciaries, trustee and agents, and each of their past, present and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, principals, heirs, representatives,

accountants, auditors, consultants, attorneys, insurers and reinsurers.”

7. Defendant should state in declarations filed with the court, whether, after making reasonable inquiry, since the time it signed the settlement agreement they have become aware of any class, representative or other collective action in any court that asserts claims similar to those asserted in this action. If any such actions are known to exist, the declaration(s) shall also state the name and case number of any such case and the procedural status of that case, and describe the impact of the settlement on that case.

8. The phrase “and the LWDA” should be removed in paragraph 6 and paragraph 6.3.

9. The second-to-last sentence in in paragraph 8.6 should be revised to state: (i) the parties shall file with the court all disputes submitted by class members, the evidence submitted, and the resolution of the disputes, and (ii) although the settlement administrator may make the initial decision regarding claim disputes, the court may review any decision made by the settlement administrator regarding a claim dispute. In the last sentence of paragraph 8.6, the word “initial” should be inserted before “determination.”

10. Subsection (1) of paragraph 9 should be removed. The court will not approve a settlement that permits defendant to shorten the Class Period and/or the PAGA Period.

11. While the court will not determine the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded until final approval, the court is unlikely to approve attorneys’ fees in excess of 30% of the gross settlement amount absent unique circumstances. Plaintiff’s counsel should address in the supplemental filing whether any such unique circumstances exist here.

12. Plaintiff seeks an enhancement award of $15,000. While the court will not determine the amount of any enhancement award for plaintiff until final approval, the court is unlikely to approve an enhancement award in excess of $5,000 absent unique circumstances. Plaintiff should address in the supplemental filing whether any such unique circumstances exist here.

As to the notice:

13. The notice should be revised consistent with the above.

14. As a general observation, the notice should be substantially shortened and duplicative language and sections should be removed.

15. The phrase “and PAGA” should be inserted after “CLASS ACTION” in the title of the notice and throughout the document, e.g., in the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 1.

16. The phrase “against the Defendant” should be removed from the first box on page 1 as it is inconsistent with the settlement agreement.

17. The word “then” should be removed from the first sentence the second box on page 1.

18. The phrase “will have the final decision” in the second box on page 1 should be revised as stated above.

19. The hearing time in the box at the top of page 2 should be replaced with “2:00 p.m.”

20. The filing dates of the two pleadings in section 1 on page 2 are incorrect.

21. Section 1 should identify all of the defendants.

22. The phrase “and PAGA” should be inserted in the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 1 on page 2. The first sentence should end after “of the above- captioned action.”

23. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of section 1 on page 1 should be removed, as should the phrase “At the hearing” at the beginning of the second sentence. The word “has” should be inserted after “The Court” and before “granted” in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of section 1.

24. The word “expressly” should be removed in the first sentence of the second paragraph of section 2. The same paragraph should be substantially shortened.

25. The word “estimated” should be removed from the first bullet point section in section 3. The word “reasonable” should be removed from the second bullet point section in section 3, and the last sentence of the second bullet point section should be removed. The costs amount stated in that bullet point second is inconsistent with the settlement agreement and should be revised.

26. The hearing time in section 10 should be replaced with “2:00 p.m.”

27. The word “posed” in section 11 should be “posted.”

28. The word “TAXED” in the box on the second page of the dispute form should be “FAXED.”

29. The dispute form should include pay period disputes.

30. The dispute form should be substantially shortened, and it need not be signed under penalty of perjury.

31. The hearing date and time, judge and department should be removed from the objection form. The method of submitting the objection form stated in the last sentence the all caps paragraph is inconsistent with the settlement agreement and should be revised.

32. The exclusion form need not be signed under penalty of perjury.

As to the proposed order (ROA 76, 84):

33. The proposed order should be revised consistent with the above.

34. The settlement agreement, any amendment(s) thereto, and the notice packet (in English and Spanish) should be attached to the proposed order as exhibits. The proposed preliminary approval order and the proposed final approval order should not be attached to the proposed order as exhibits. Only one copy of the notice should be attached to the proposed order as an exhibit.

35. The word “provisionally” in paragraph 4 should be replaced with “preliminarily” in two places.

36. “Plaintiffs” in paragraph 6 should be “Plaintiff.”

37. The word “conditionally” in paragraph 7 should be replaced with “preliminarily.”

38. The proposed order should also identify the Aggrieved Employees and the PAGA Period.

39. Paragraph 10 is duplicative of paragraph 2.

The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA settlement is continued to October 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement is directed, rather than “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review. The parties shall also provide redlined copies of any revised documents.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service.

No earlier hearing date is available for this motion.

11