Rodriguez v. Penske Logistics, LLC

Filing 37

ORDER re 27 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/27/16: In light of the court's questions raised at hearing, the court instructs plaintiff's counsel to submit a supplemental declaration. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CHARLES RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former
employees,

16
17
18

ORDER

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-CV-02061-KJM-CKD

v.
PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
Defendant.

19
20

On December 16, 2016, the court held a hearing regarding Rodriguez’s unopposed

21

motion for conditional certification of the class, preliminary approval of the settlement, and

22

approval of the proposed notice to the putative class. Mot. Prelim. Approval (Mot.), ECF No. 27;

23

Mins., ECF No. 35. In light of the court’s questions raised at hearing, the court instructs

24

plaintiff’s counsel to submit a supplemental declaration addressing each of the following issues:

25
26
27
28

1. Whether AB 1513 / Cal. Labor Code § 226.2 impacts all eight (8) of the claims
brought forth in the complaint;
2. Whether AB 1513 / Cal. Labor Code § 226.2 impacts the claims of class
members that worked between September 5, 2010 (i.e. the start of the putative
1

1

class period) and July 1, 2012 (i.e. the start of the statutory affirmative defense

2

period);

3

3. Whether AB 1513 / Cal. Labor Code § 226.2 impacts the claims of class

4

members that worked between January 1, 2016 (i.e. the end of the statutory

5

affirmative defense period) and November 1, 2016 (i.e. the end of the putative

6

class period);

7

4. Whether the Gross Settlement amount of $850,000 is fair, reasonable, and

8

adequate in light of the remaining value of all claims as impacted by AB 1513 /

9

Cal. Labor Code § 226.2;

10

5. Whether putative class members should be compensated differently according

11

to whether any weeks worked were during (a) September 5, 2010, through July

12

1, 2012; (b) July 1, 2012, through January 1, 2016; or (c) January 1, 2016,

13

through November 1, 2016; and

14
15

6. Whether the “carve-out” provisions of AB 1513, Cal. Labor Code §
226.2(g)(1)–(6), impact any of the claims brought forth in the complaint.

16

The supplemental declaration should be no more than ten (10) pages and should be filed within

17

seven (7) days of this order.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 27, 2016

20
21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2