Larkin v. Yelp! Inc.
Filing
54
Proposed Order re 53 Motion Hearing,, PROPOSED JUDGMENT by Ahmad Deanes, Justin Larkin, Anthony Tijerino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH AND GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT)(Rukin, Peter) (Filed on 12/3/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
Peter Rukin (SBN 178336)
RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 421-1800
Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
E-mail: peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com
8
Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg (SBN 251872)
GALLENBERG PC
9701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90071
Telephone: (310) 295-1654
Facsimile: (310) 733-5654
Email: rosa@gallenberglaw.com
9
Attorneys for Representative Plaintiffs
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MALCOLM A. HEINICKE (SBN 194174)
Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com
CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI (SBN 263541)
Carolyn.Zabrycki@mto.com
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile:
(415) 512-4077
Attorneys for Defendant
YELP! INC.
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
22
JUSTIN LARKIN, ANTHONY TIJERINO, and Case No. 3:11-cv-01503-EMC
AHMAD DEANES, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs,
v.
Judge:
YELP! INC.,
Defendant.
27
28
Case No. 3:11-cv-01503-EMC
Honorable Edward M. Chen
1
This matter came on for hearing upon the joint application of the Settling Parties for
2
approval of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”). Due
3
and adequate notice having been given to the California Class and the National Class, and the
4
Court having considered the Stipulation, all papers filed and proceedings had herein, and all
5
oral and written comments received regarding the proposed settlement, and having reviewed
6
the record in this Litigation, and good cause appearing,
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
8
9
10
1.
The Court, for purposes of this Judgment, adopts all defined terms as set
forth in the Stipulation Re: Settlement of Class and Collective Actions (“Stipulation”) filed in
this case.
11
2.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and
12
the Class Representatives, the Members of the California Settlement Class, the Members of the
13
National Settlement Class, and Yelp.
14
3.
The Court finds that the distribution of the California Notice and the
15
National Notice as provided for in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval and Settlement
16
Hearing, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all Persons within
17
the definition of the California Class and National Class, and fully met the requirements of due
18
process under the United States Constitution and California law. Based on evidence and other
19
material submitted in conjunction with the Settlement Hearing, the actual notices to the
20
California Class and National Class were adequate. The Court further finds that Yelp has
21
satisfied the requirements of notice to pertinent government agencies set forth in the federal
22
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
23
24
4.
The Court finds that the instant Litigation presented a good faith dispute
over the payment of wages, and the Court finds in favor of settlement approval.
25
5.
The Court approves the settlement of the above-captioned action, as set
26
forth in the Stipulation, each of the releases and other terms, as fair, just, reasonable, and
27
adequate as to the Settling Parties. The Settling Parties are directed to perform in accordance
28
16620979.2
-1-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
1
with the terms set forth in the Stipulation.
2
6.
Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in
3
Attachment A hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the California
4
Settlement Class, all of the California Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice as to Class
5
Representatives Justin Larkin and Anthony Tijerino, and the other Members of the California
6
Class. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the
7
Stipulation.
8
9
10
7.
All of the National Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice as to
the Class Representatives and the other Members of the National Settlement Class. The
Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.
11
8.
Solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, this Court has
12
certified a class of all Members of the California Settlement Class, as that term is defined in
13
and by the terms of the Stipulation, and the Court deems this definition sufficient for purposes
14
of due process and Rule 23.
15
9.
With respect to the California Settlement Class and for purposes of
16
approving this settlement only, this Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Members of the
17
California Settlement Class are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is
18
impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the California Settlement Class,
19
and there is a well-defined community of interest among Members of the California Settlement
20
Class with respect to the subject matter of the Litigation; (c) the claims of the Class
21
Representatives are typical of the claims of the Members of the California Settlement Class;
22
(d) the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the
23
California Members of the Settlement Class; (e) a class action is superior to other available
24
methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) the counsel of record for the
25
Class Representatives, i.e., Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as counsel for the plaintiff in
26
his individual and representative capacities and for the California Settlement Class.
27
28
16620979.2
-2-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
1
10.
Solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, this Court has
2
certified a collective action class of all Members of the National Settlement Class, as that term
3
is defined in and by the terms of the Stipulation, and the Court deems this definition sufficient
4
for purposes of due process and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
5
11.
With respect to the National Settlement Class and for purposes of
6
approving this settlement only, this Court finds and concludes that: the National Settlement
7
Class meets the requirements for certification as a collective action class under 29 U.S.C. §
8
216(b) because the National Settlement Class Members are similarly situated.
9
12.
By this Judgment, the Class Representatives shall release, relinquish,
10
and discharge, and each of the California Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have,
11
and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
12
and discharged all California Released Claims (including Unknown Claims).
13
13.
By this Judgment, the Class Representatives shall release, relinquish,
14
and discharge, and each of the National Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have,
15
and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
16
and discharged all National Released Claims (including Unknown Claims).
17
14.
This Litigation is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
18
15.
Neither the Stipulation nor the settlement contained therein, nor any act
19
performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the
20
settlement: (i) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of,
21
the validity of any California Released Claim or National Released Claim, or of any
22
wrongdoing or liability of Yelp; or (ii) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an
23
admission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of Yelp in any civil, criminal, or
24
administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal. In the event
25
that the Effective Date does not occur, Yelp shall not be estopped or otherwise precluded from
26
contesting class or collective action certification in the Litigation on any grounds. Yelp may
27
file the Stipulation and/or the Judgment from this Litigation in any other action that may be
28
16620979.2
-3-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
1
brought against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res
2
judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or reduction or any
3
theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.
4
16.
The only California Settlement Class Members entitled to payment
5
pursuant to this Judgment are California Participating Claimants, and the only National
6
Settlement Class Members entitled to payment are National Participating Claimants. Neither
7
the Stipulation nor this Judgment will result in the creation of any unpaid residue or residual,
8
and any funds that would have been paid to California Class Members and National Class
9
Members had they become California Participating Claimants and National Participating
10
Claimants that are not claimed shall remain the property of Yelp.
11
17.
Yelp has agreed to pay Class Counsel their reasonable attorney fees in
12
this matter in the total combined, gross amount of $205,000 as well as certain allowable costs
13
in this matter up to the gross amount of $9,461.62, Yelp has agreed to pay $7,500 to the
14
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), Yelp will pay $16,000 to
15
Simpluris, Inc. for settlement administrative expenses, and Yelp has agreed to pay an
16
enhancement award of $5,000 to each of the Class Representatives to reimburse them for their
17
unique services and execution of general releases. The Court finds that these agreements are
18
fair and reasonable. Yelp is directed to make such payments in accordance with the terms of
19
the Stipulation.
20
18.
The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
21
Litigation, the Counterclaim, the Class Representatives, the California Settlement Class, the
22
National Settlement Class and Yelp for the purposes of supervising the implementation,
23
enforcement, construction, administration and interpretation of the Stipulation and this
24
Judgment.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
16620979.2
-4-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
1
19.
This document shall constitute a judgment (and separate document
2
constituting said judgment) for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
DATED: _____________________
6
_______________________________
The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16620979.2
-5-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
ATTACHMENT A
November 30, 2012
Larkin v. Yelp! Inc.
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
The following two individuals timely requested exclusion from this settlement in Larkin v. Yelp,
Case No. 11-CV-01503 EMC
SIMID 478
SIMID 818
Jane Kwett
Matthew Timberlake
If you have any additional questions, you may contact the Claims Administrator, toll-free, at
1-888-369-3780, or by mail addressed to:
Larkin v. Yelp
c/o Simpluris, Inc.
P. O. Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?