Hall v. Comcast Corporation et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING 55 STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/31/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013)

Case3:11-cv-05174-JSW Document55 Filed07/30/13 Page1 of 5

4

CAROLYN H. COTTRELL (SBN 166977)
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiff

1
2
3

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10

LYNN HALL,

11
12

Case No.: 3:11-cv-05174-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SETTLEMENT,
DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS
CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
vs.

13
14
15
16
17

COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST
OF CALIFORNIA / COLORADO / TEXAS /
WASHINGTON, INC., COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA / COLORADO /
WASHINGTON I, INC. and DOES 1 to 50
Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hall v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05174-JSW

Case3:11-cv-05174-JSW Document55 Filed07/30/13 Page2 of 5

STIPULATION

1
2

Plaintiff Lynn Hall (“Plaintiff”), along with Defendant Comcast Corporation and Defendant

3 Comcast of California / Colorado / Washington I, Inc. (“Defendants”) (collectively, “the Parties”),
4 through their respective counsel present the following stipulation and proposed order regarding
5 settlement and dismissal.
6

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Complaint on behalf of Plaintiff Hall and those similarly

7 situated to her in Alameda County Superior Court on September 16, 2011;
8

WHEREAS, the Complaint included class allegations of all similarly situated Business Account

9 Executives against Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
10 and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Plaintiff challenged Defendants’ policies and/or practices of
11 failing to reimburse Business Account Executives for necessary expenditures and losses they incurred
12 as a direct consequence of discharging their employment duties. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that
13 Defendants failed to reimburse Business Account Executives for mileage expenses, cellular phone
14 expenses, home office expenses, and other work-related expenditures. Plaintiff sought to represent a
15 class of “all individuals employed in California by Comcast as Business Account Executives, or
16 similarly situated outside salespersons, at any time within the period of four years prior to the
17 commencement of this action through the date of judgment of this action”;
18
19

WHEREAS, on October 20 and 21, 2011, Defendants answered the Complaint and denied
Plaintiff’s allegations;

20

WHEREAS, after reviewing the information obtained during extensive investigation, class

21

outreach, discovery, and depositions Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately determined that the case was better

22

suited to proceed on behalf of Plaintiff Lynn Hall individually as opposed to on a class-wide basis.

23

Consequently, Plaintiff did not file a class certification motion on February 22, 2013 1;

24
25

WHEREAS, the Parties began arms’-length negotiations to settle this lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and one additional Business Account Executive, Raquel Luzi Steiner (“Ms. Steiner”). The

26
1

27
28

If the Court requires additional information about this decision, Plaintiff’s counsel is willing to provide details for the
Court’s in camera review.
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hall v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05174-JSW

Case3:11-cv-05174-JSW Document55 Filed07/30/13 Page3 of 5

1

Parties ultimately agreed that Plaintiff Hall and Ms. Steiner, would settle their individual claims in this

2

lawsuit in exchange for monetary compensation. Other than the compensation set forth in the

3

settlement agreements, each party is to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs;

4

WHEREAS, the Parties have carefully and exhaustively negotiated individual settlements for

5 Plaintiff Hall and Ms. Steiner, and have agreed to resolve their individual claims as set forth in their
6 respective Settlement Agreements;
7

WHEREAS, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 23(e) requires court approval

8 to dismiss a certified class action. As discussed above, Plaintiff did not move for class certification in
9 this case. Generally, as valid, binding contracts, settlement agreements do not need to be approved,
10 ratified or adopted by the court in order to be enforceable. See 15B Am. Jur. 2d Compromise and
11 Settlement § 9; see also Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“This
12 requirement of court approval for [a Rule 23 class action] settlement is in contrast to the procedures for
13 settlement in most other civil actions”);
14

WHEREAS, in light of the Parties’ negotiated individual settlements, the Parties hereby stipulate

15 to dismiss Plaintiff Hall and Ms. Steiner’s individual claims with prejudice, and dismiss the remaining
16 class claims without prejudice;
17
18
19

WHEREFORE, the Parties request that the Court dismiss class claims without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:
The Parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Hall and Ms. Steiner’s individual

20

claims with prejudice, and that the Court enter an order dismissing the remaining class claims without

21

prejudice.

22
DATED: July 30, 2013
23

SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP

24
25

/s/ Carolyn H. Cottrell
CAROLYN H. COTTRELL
Attorneys for Plaintiff LYNN HALL

26
27
28

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hall v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05174-JSW

Case3:11-cv-05174-JSW Document55 Filed07/30/13 Page4 of 5

1
2
3
4

DATED: July 30, 2013

LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
/s/ Rebecca K. Kimura
REBECCA K. KIMURA
Attorneys for Defendants COMCAST CORPORATION and
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA / COLORADO /
WASHINGTON I, INC.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hall v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05174-JSW

Case3:11-cv-05174-JSW Document55 Filed07/30/13 Page5 of 5

1

ORDER

2

The individual claims of Plaintiff Lynn Hall and Ms. Raquel Luzi Steiner are dismissed with

3

prejudice, as stipulated between the Parties. The Court, hereby dismisses the remaining class claims

4

without prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

July 31, 2013

__________________________
HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Court

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hall v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05174-JSW