Sewell et al v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

Filing 52

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing and Continuing Hearing on 44 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The July 21, 2014 hearing is CONTINUED to August 25, 2014, at 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/10/14. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANDREA SEWELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
STATE COMPENSATION
INSURANCE FUND,
Defendant.

13

Case No. 13-cv-00588-TEH
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING AND ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

14
15

This matter is scheduled for hearing on Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for

16

preliminary approval of class action settlement on July 21, 2014. After reviewing the

17

papers, the Court has serious questions, including the following, about the proposed

18

settlement:

19

1. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that many obstacles impede a Class recovery of the

20

maximum exposure amount, including inadequate record keeping and no standard amount

21

of overtime worked. How can the Court evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed

22

settlement when the parties have presented no estimation of the value of Plaintiffs’ claims

23

were they to prevail at trial?

24
25
26

2. Why is it reasonable for the settlement not to include any provisions for injunctive
relief, as was requested in the First Amended Complaint?
3. Does the release of federal claims by all Class Members except those who opt out

27

violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows only for opt-in collective actions under

28

29 U.S.C. § 216(b)?

1

4. Has Defendant complied with the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)?

2
3

The parties shall address these issues in a joint filing to be submitted on or before

4

July 21, 2014. The July 21, 2014 hearing is CONTINUED to August 25, 2014, at 10:00

5

AM. If, as a result of conferring on the Court’s questions, the parties decide to renegotiate

6

the proposed settlement, then Plaintiffs shall file a notice withdrawing their motion for

7

preliminary approval. Such withdrawal would be without prejudice to filing a subsequent

8

motion for approval of a different settlement agreement.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: 07/10/14

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2