Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dean A. Robbins and Timothy Green sued Phillips 66 Company on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees in the Northern District of California, and the order identifies Keith Washington and Ian Clare as additional plaintiffs. The order does not recite the underlying claims. It refers to Released Class Claims and Released PAGA Claims and approves the PAGA component under California Labor Code section 2699(l), so the case combined class claims with a representative Private Attorneys General Act claim. The parties submitted a joint class and PAGA settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on July 24, 2025.
The settlement class covers all current and former non-exempt or hourly paid employees who worked for Phillips 66 in California during the Class Period. The period begins November 27, 2013 and ends on the earlier of the date Phillips 66 ceases operations at its Los Angeles Refinery or the date closest to, without exceeding, 500,000 workweeks worked by class members. The order fixes the end date at April 10, 2026 without saying which trigger applied. Notice went to class members under the preliminary approval order. Plaintiffs moved for final approval and for fees, expenses and service payments, and the court heard the motions on October 8, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted final approval, finding the settlement fair, reasonable and adequate to the class and each class member, and finally certified the class for settlement purposes only, for the reasons in its preliminary approval order. It found the notice was the best practicable and satisfied the law and due process. No class member filed a written objection, and one class member opted out and is excluded. Class members who did not opt out, including the named plaintiffs, are bound by the settlement and its releases, and PAGA group members are bound by the PAGA release whether or not they request exclusion.
The court approved the individual class and PAGA payments as fair and reasonable and approved administration costs of up to $14,500. For class counsel, Setareh Law Group and James Hawkins APLC, it approved fees of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, stated as $4,166,666.67, plus litigation costs of $205,250.24. The order states a total of $4,262,517.70, which does not equal the sum of those two figures, and the fee sentence contains an incomplete phrase about a deduction. The order also never states the Gross Settlement Amount, so the exact payable amount should be confirmed from the settlement and docket.
Each of the four plaintiffs receives a $10,000 service enhancement, totaling $40,000. The court approved $400,000 in PAGA penalties, with $300,000 (75 percent) to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $100,000 (25 percent) to PAGA group members. Checks uncashed after 120 days go to the State Controller under the Unclaimed Property Law for the benefit of those who did not cash them, and the parties must file a Post-Distribution Accounting within 21 days after the checks go stale. The court retained jurisdiction over interpretation, administration and enforcement, entered final judgment under Rule 58, and left each side to bear its own costs and fees except as the order provides.
Key Takeaways
- The class covers non-exempt and hourly Phillips 66 employees across California, not only Los Angeles Refinery workers, though the class period is tied to the refinery's operations.
- No class member objected and one opted out, which supported the court's findings that notice was adequate and the settlement fair.
- The fee award is one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, but the order's stated fee, cost and total figures do not reconcile, so the total should not be treated as verified.
- PAGA penalties of $400,000 were split 75 percent to the LWDA and 25 percent to PAGA group members, who are bound by the PAGA release even if they request exclusion.
- Final judgment was entered under Rule 58, and the court keeps jurisdiction over administration and enforcement of the settlement.
Why It Matters
This is a district court final approval order, not a published appellate opinion, and it decides no question of wage-and-hour liability. Its findings go to the fairness of a negotiated settlement, not to any adjudication that Phillips 66 violated the law. Much of the reasoning on certification rests on the preliminary approval order, which is not part of these materials.
Practitioners can note the one-third fee, the $10,000 service awards, the 75/25 PAGA split and the post-distribution accounting requirement. Because the document is a revised proposed order adopted as modified by the court, and its fee figures are internally inconsistent, anyone relying on the numbers should check the docket and settlement agreement.