1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 WILLIAM MIGUEL-SANCHEZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-00823-VKD

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION

10 v. OF CY PRES FUNDS

11 MESA PACKING, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 69 Defendant. 12

13 14 Following final approval of the class action settlement in this matter, Dkt. No. 59, the 15 Court extended the class payment period to permit the Settlement Administrator to conduct 16 additional searches and effectuate payment to any unpaid class members who could be located. 17 Dkt. No. 68. 18 On October 14, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended final payment report stating that an 19 additional 17 class members were located and paid. Dkt. No. 69 at 2. They further report that 20 $65,994.50 now remains of the settlement fund for distribution to the previously approved cy pres 21 recipient, Salud Para La Gente (“Salud”) in Watsonville, California. Id. Plaintiffs request that the 22 Court order payment of the remaining funds to the cy pres recipient. Id. In the alternative, they 23 propose distribution of the remaining funds on a pro rata basis. 24 Preliminarily, if the Court were to distribute the remaining funds pro rata to the 548 class 25 members who were successfully paid, the distributions would be minimal. Plaintiffs report that 26 the average additional payment would be less than $120, with a quarter of the payments less than 27 $15. Dkt. No. 69 at 2. Plaintiffs report that an additional distribution would also incur further 1 already made to class members, the Court finds that distribution to the cy pres beneficiary is 2 appropriate. 3 “Cy pres provides a mechanism for distributing unclaimed funds to the next best class of 4 beneficiaries.” In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., 906 F.3d 747, 760 (9th Cir. 2018). “Under the cy 5 pres approach, ‘class members receive an indirect benefit (usually through defendant donations to 6 a third party) rather than a direct monetary payment.’” Id. (quoting Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 7 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012)). “[Ninth Circuit case law] encourage[s] the selection of cy pres 8 recipients that both [(1)] promote ‘the objectives of the underlying statute(s)’ and [(2)] serve ‘the 9 interests of the silent class members.’” Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., No. 13-CV-04303-LHK, 2016 10 WL 613255, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (citing Lane, 696 F.3d 811; Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 11 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012); Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011)). “The Court 12 must be ‘guided by’ these considerations and evaluate whether the cy pres distribution is ‘the next 13 best distribution’ to giving the funds directly to the class members.” Id. (quoting Dennis, 697 F.3d 14 at 865). 15 Here, the designated cy pres recipient, Salud, provides healthcare services in California’s 16 Pájaro Valley, without regard to whether a patient is able to pay for those services. Salud Para La 17 Gente, Main Page, https://splg.org/ (last visited: October 17, 2022). It has 10 clinic sites and 18 nearly 30,000 patients. Id. Approximately 75% of Salud’s patients do not speak English. Id. 19 Here, the cy pres recipient has an indirect connection to the objectives of the underlying 20 statutes at issue in this case. Plaintiffs brought claims pursuant to the California Labor Code; the 21 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.; 22 and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. Of 23 particular importance, the AWPA protects migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, many of 24 whom are low income, by establishing employment standards related to wages, housing, 25 transportation, disclosures and recordkeeping. While Salud does not directly work on issues of 26 housing or transportation, it appears to serve the same community the AWPA seeks to protect. 27 Therefore, there is a sufficient connection between the cy pres recipient and the objectives of the 1 Salud also “serves the interests of the silent class members.” See Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 2 1039. As noted, Salud provides healthcare services for individuals living in California’s Pajaro 3 || Valley, where many individuals in the class work. Salud’s history further demonstrates that they 4 || serve the interests of the settlement class: “Salud was founded in 1978. We began as a single free 5 clinic offering healthcare primarily to farmworkers living and working on California’s Central 6 || Coast.... We serve a unique, vibrant community including farmworkers and their families.” 7 Salud Para La Gente, History, https://splg.org/about/history/ (last visited: October 17, 2022). 8 Finally, the Court notes that there were no objectors to the parties’ settlement agreement 9 throughout the process. Dkt. No. 69 at 3. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders that the net amount of $65,994.50 be paid to 11 the parties’ cy pres recipient, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, CA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 13 Dated: October 18, 2022

14 ae 15 UnigniinE, A □□□□□□ 2 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI = 16 United States Magistrate Judge = i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28