This case was last updated from Kern County Superior Courts on 03/01/2022 at 08:20:51 (UTC).

VALERIA RODRIGUEZ, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORTION

Case Summary

On 08/17/2020 VALERIA RODRIGUEZ, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORTION. This case was filed in Kern County Superior Courts, Metropolitan Branch located in Kern, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Schuett, Stephen D., Bradshaw, J. Eric and Lampe, David R.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *********1913

  • Filing Date:

    08/17/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Kern, California

Judge Details

Judges

Schuett, Stephen D.

Bradshaw, J. Eric

Lampe, David R.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Rodriguez, Valeria

VALERIA RODRIGUEZ, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Defendants

John Bean Technologies Corporation

JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORTION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LEE, LARRY W.

MARDER, WILLIAM L

Defendant Attorney

PETRIDES, THOMAS H

 

Court Documents

Order to Show Cause

Notice of Assignment and OSC re CRC 3110 and CMC (N18C): Comment: Re: CRC 3.110 Hearing Date: 12/01/20 Hearing Time: 8:30 Hearing Department/Division: 10

Ruling

Ruling 08/27/2020: Hearing Time: 08:30 AM; Result: Ruling; Comment: re:Peremptory Challenge

Electronic Rejection Notice

Electronic Rejection Notice: Comment: Stipulation & Order: Filing is not in compliance with CRC 2.100-2.119; Plaintiffs attorney info needs to be removed from the upper right hand corner. That area is for Court use only for the Filed Stamp.

Electronic Rejection Notice

Electronic Rejection Notice: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement: This case is assigned to Judge Lampe not Judge Schuett as of 8/27/20. Case Management Conference is set for 2/16/21 at 8:30 in Department 11. Please make corrections and resubmit.

Case Management Conference

Case Management Conference 09/09/2021: Judicial Officer: Lampe, David R.; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM; Result: Held; Comment: Cont'd from 2/16/21

Electronic Rejection Notice

Rejection/Correction Notice: Comment: To: Kwanporn Tulyathan Re: Statement Reason:Duplicate Filing. We accepted Joint Case Management Statement on 11/23/2021. Please review.

Case Management Conference

Case Management Conference 12/09/2021: Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM; Result: Held; Comment: Cont'd from 9/9/21 - settlement in works

Ruling

Ruling 01/19/2022: Hearing Time: 11:00 AM; Result: Ruling

Further Case Management Conference

Motion (Pre-Disposition) 02/14/2022: Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM; Comment: cont'd from 09/09/21, 12/09/21

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2022
  • DocketFinal Approval Hearing on Class Action Settlement - Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2022
  • DocketAudio streaming announced.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2022
  • DocketOrder - Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Comment: Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiff Valeria Rodriguez ("Plaintiff")'s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement came on for hearing on January 27, 2022. Plaintiff and Defendant John Bean Technologies Corporation ("Defendant") appeared through their respective attorneys of record. The Court has considered the Joint Stipulation for Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release ("Stipulation" or "Settlement Agreement"), the submissions of counsel, and all other papers filed in this action. The matter having been submitted and good cause appearing thereof, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS as follows: 1. This Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant filed herewith. The Settlement Agreement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class. 2. The Class Representative and Defendant (hereafter, "Settling Parties"), through their counsel of record in the Litigation, have reached an agreement to settle the class and PAGA claims in the Litigation as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, on behalf of the Class (as defined below and in the Settlement Agreement). 3. The Court hereby conditionally certifies the following class for settlement purposes only: All current and former non-exempt hourly employees who performed work in California for the FoodTech division of John Bean Technologies Corporation during the period from April 6, 2016 through August 18, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Should for whatever reason the Settlement Agreement not become Final, the fact that the Parties were willing to stipulate to certification of a class as part of the Settlement Agreement shall have no bearing on, or be admissible in connection with, the Litigation or the issue of whether a class should be certified in a non-settlement context. 4. The Court appoints and designates: (a) Plaintiff Valeria Rodriguez as the Class Representative and (b) Larry W. Lee and Mai Tulyathan of Diversity Law Group, P.C. and William L. Marder of Polaris Law Group as Class Counsel for the Class. Class Counsel is authorized to act on behalf of the Class with respect to all acts or consents required by, or which may be given, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and such other acts reasonably necessary to finalize the Settlement Agreement and its terms. Any Class Member may enter an appearance through his or her own counsel at such Class Member's own expense. Any Class Member who does not enter an appearance or appear on his or her own behalf will be represented by Class Counsel. 5. The Court hereby approves the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that on a preliminary basis the Settlement Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness of a settlement, including the amount of the PAGA penalties, and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the final fairness hearing and final approval by the Court. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable as to all potential Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to liability, class certification, and damages issues. It also appears that investigation and research into the claims, liability, and damages have been conducted so that counsel for the Settling Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It appears to the Court that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs by all Settling Parties, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the Litigation. It also appears that settlement has been reached as a result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive arm's length negotiations. 6. A final fairness and final approval hearing on the question of whether the proposed Settlement Agreement, the allocation of payments to Class Members, attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, the payment to the Settlement Administrator, the payment to the Labor Workforce & Development Agency, and the service payment to the Class Representative should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Class is hereby set for June 6, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in this Court. The Motion for Final Approval shall be filed by the Class Representative no later than sixteen (16) court days before the final fairness hearing. 7. The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Class Action Settlement ("Class Notice") to be sent to Class Members, which is attached herein as Exhibit A. The Court finds that distribution of the Class Notice to Class Members substantially in the manner and form set forth in the Settlement Agreement and this Order meets the requirements of due process and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all parties entitled thereto. 8. The Court appoints and designates Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Settlement Administrator. The Court hereby directs the Settlement Administrator to provide the approved Class Notice to Class Members using the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 9. Any Class Member may choose to opt out of and be excluded from the Settlement as provided in the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice, and by following the instructions for requesting exclusion. Any person who timely and properly opts out of the Settlement will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement or have any right to object, appeal, or comment thereon. Any requests for exclusion must be in writing and signed by each such Class Member opting out and must otherwise comply with the requirements delineated in the Class Notice. Class Members who have not requested exclusion by submitting a valid and timely request by the deadline shall be bound by all determinations of the Court, the Settlement Agreement, and Judgment. 10. Any Class Member may object to the Settlement Agreement or express his or her views regarding the Settlement Agreement, and may present evidence and file briefs or other papers that may be proper and relevant to the issues to be heard and determined by the Court as provided in the Notice. 11. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Settlement Fairness Hearing and all dates provided for in the Settlement Agreement without further notice to the Class, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the Class Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion (Pre-Disposition) - Motion (Pre-Disposition) 02/14/2022: Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM; Result: Held; Comment: Filed 12/20/21, by Plaintiff, Valeria Rodriguez. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketFurther Case Management Conference - Motion (Pre-Disposition) 02/14/2022: Judicial Officer: Bradshaw, J. Eric; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM; Result: Held; Comment: cont'd from 09/09/21, 12/09/21

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2022
  • DocketCase Management Statement - Comment: ***Joint ***

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRuling - Ruling 01/19/2022: Hearing Time: 11:00 AM; Result: Ruling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2021
  • DocketProof of Service - Comment: of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2021
  • DocketDeclaration - Comment: of William L. Marder in support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2021
  • DocketDeclaration - Comment: of Larry W. Lee in support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 10/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketElectronic Rejection Notice - Electronic Rejection Notice: Comment: Stipulation & Order: Filing is not in compliance with CRC 2.100-2.119; Plaintiffs attorney info needs to be removed from the upper right hand corner. That area is for Court use only for the Filed Stamp.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service - Summons / Complaint - Comment: As to Jean Bean Technologies Corporation, a Delaware Corporation. Personal service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Assignment / Case Management Conference - Comment: as to Judge Lampe

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRuling - Ruling 08/27/2020: Hearing Time: 08:30 AM; Result: Ruling; Comment: re:Peremptory Challenge

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketPeremptory Challenge-170.6 - Comment: as to Judge Schuett

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketCivil and Small Claims Documents - Served: 09/16/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Notice of Assignment and OSC re CRC 3110 and CMC (N18C): Comment: Re: CRC 3.110 Hearing Date: 12/01/20 Hearing Time: 8:30 Hearing Department/Division: 10

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketSummons Issued and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet (CM-010)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION is a litigant