Rulli et al v. Nielsen Company (U.S.) LLC
Filing
45
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 1/12/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
David Borgen (SBN 099354)
dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
James Kan (SBN 240749)
jkan@gbdhlegal.com
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 763-9800
Fax: (510) 835-1417
Gregg I. Shavitz
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
1515 South Federal Highway Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Tel: (800) 616-4000
Fax: (561) 447-8831
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
STEVE RULLI, JOSE BUENROSTRO,
EDWIN BUMP, and ENRIQUE CRUZ on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
16
Case No.: 3:14-CV-01835 VC
[REVISED] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs,
17
vs.
18
NIELSEN COMPANY (U.S.) LLC,
19
Defendant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
1
The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed by Plaintiffs Steve
2
Rulli, Jose Buenrostro, Edwin Bump, and Enrique Cruz (“Plaintiffs”), came on for hearing regularly in
3
Courtroom 6 of the above captioned court, the Honorable Vincent Chhabria presiding. Defendant
4
Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen” or “Defendant”) does not oppose the motion.
5
On April 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Nielsen on behalf of themselves and
6
other employees. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that employees are owed compensation for
7
hours worked (including regular wages, minimum wages and overtime wages), meal periods, rest
8
breaks, untimely final pay and inaccurate itemized wage statements, and related penalties. The lawsuit
9
seeks damages for lost wages, interest, penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.
10
Defendant denies all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
11
After initial exchanges of information, the Parties entered into private mediation before
12
respected neutral mediator Mark Rudy, Esq. to try and resolve the claims. As a result of that mediation
13
on September 16, 2014, and under the auspices of Mr. Rudy, the Parties reached a settlement. The
14
Parties then entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Release on or around November 6, 2014.
15
A preliminary hearing was held before this Court on December 18, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., for the
16
purpose of determining, among other things, whether the proposed Stipulation of Settlement was
17
within the range of possible approval and whether notice to the Class of its terms and conditions, and
18
the scheduling of a formal fairness hearing, also known as a final approval hearing, will be appropriate.
19
Appearing at the hearing was counsel for Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on behalf of Defendant;
20
and counsel for Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class.
21
At the hearing, the Court made several suggestions for revising the proposed class action
22
settlement agreement and for revising the proposed class notice. The Court denied the motion for
23
preliminary approval but without prejudice to its renewal by means of an administrative motion
24
without a further hearing (Dkt. No. 42). The Court requested that counsel resubmit these documents
25
once revised pursuant to the Court’s suggestions. The parties have agreed to the revisions (attached)
26
and to the filing of the suggested administrative motion, filed on December 24, 2014.
27
28
1
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
1
Having reviewed the papers and documents presented, having heard the statements of counsel,
2
having considered the matter, including the renewed motion submitted pursuant to L.R. 7-11, the Court
3
HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
4
1.
The Court hereby GRANTS Preliminary Approval of the terms and conditions
5
contained in the Stipulation of Settlement (as modified by the Amendment to Stipulation of Settlement
6
and Release dated December 23, 2014), attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Court preliminarily finds
7
that the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement (as amended) appear to be within the range of possible
8
approval, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable
9
law.
10
2.
The Court finds on a preliminary basis that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and
11
reasonable to the Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation
12
relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) significant
13
informal discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for
14
the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement at this
15
time will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of
16
the litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and
17
non-collusive negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily finds that the
18
Stipulation of Settlement (as amended) was entered into in good faith.
19
3.
The Court hereby GRANTS conditional certification of the provisional California Class
20
and California FLSA Class, in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement (as amended), for the
21
purposes of this Settlement only. The California Class is defined as “all current and former employees
22
employed in field representative, field quality specialist and/or market quality specialist positions or
23
senior variations of those titles by Defendant in California between April 22, 2010 and the date of
24
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement or December 31, 2014, whichever is earlier, and who did not
25
previously execute general releases” and the California FLSA Class is defined as “all current and
26
former employees employed in field representative, field quality specialist and/or market quality
27
specialist positions or senior variations of those titles by Defendant in California between January 9,
28
2011 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, whichever is earlier.”
2
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
1
4.
The Court hereby authorizes the retention of Rust Consulting as Settlement
2
Administrator for the purpose of the Settlement with reasonable administration costs estimated not to
3
exceed $10,000.00.
4
5
6
5.
The Court hereby conditionally appoints Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho and
Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as counsel for the Class, and Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Class.
6.
The Court hereby APPROVES the (Revised) Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
7
Court finds that the (Revised) Notice, along with the related notification procedure contemplated by
8
the Stipulation of Settlement (as amended), constitute the best notice practicable under the
9
circumstances and are in full compliance with the applicable laws and the requirements of due process.
10
The Court further finds that the (Revised) Notice appears to fully and accurately inform the Class
11
Members of all material elements of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement, of the California Class
12
Members’ right to be excluded from the Settlement, and of each California Class Member’s right and
13
opportunity to object to the Settlement. Subject to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the
14
(Revised) Notice shall be mailed via first-class mail to the most recent known address of each Class
15
Member within the timeframe specified in the Stipulation of Settlement (as amended). The parties are
16
authorized to make non-substantive changes to the proposed Class Notice that are consistent with the
17
terms of the Settlement and this Order.
18
7.
The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed procedure for California Class Member
19
exclusion from the Settlement, which is to submit a written statement requesting exclusion to the
20
Settlement Administrator no later than sixty (60) days following the date on which the Settlement
21
Administrator first mails the Notice Packet to California Class Members. Any California Class
22
Member who submits an Exclusion Letter shall not be a Member of the California Class, shall be
23
barred from participating in the California Class Settlement and shall receive no benefit from the
24
California Class Settlement.
25
8.
The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed California Class Form and California
26
FLSA Opt In Form for use in administering the Settlement, attached hereto as Exhibit B and C. The
27
applicable documents must be mailed to Class Members along with the Notice. Subject to the terms of
28
the Stipulation of Settlement, California FLSA Class Members must sign, date and return completed
3
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
1
California FLSA Opt In Forms to the Settlement Administrator postmarked no later than sixty (60)
2
days following the date on which the Settlement Administrator first mails the Notice Packets to Class
3
Members in order to receive a monetary payment. The parties are authorized to make non-substantive
4
changes to the proposed California Class Form and California FLSA Opt In Form that are consistent
5
with the terms of the Settlement and this Order.
6
9.
The Court further ORDERS that Class Counsel shall file a motion for approval of the
7
Fee and Expense Award and the Service Payment, with the appropriate declarations and supporting
8
evidence, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the close of the Class Notice period to be heard at the
9
same time as the motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.
10
10.
The Court further ORDERS that Class Counsel shall file a motion for Final Approval of
11
the Settlement, with the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, including a declaration
12
setting forth the identity of any California Class Members who request exclusion from the Settlement,
13
by April 16, 2015.
14
11.
The Court further ORDERS that each California Class Member shall be given a full
15
opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement and request for attorneys’ fees, and to participate at a
16
Final Approval Hearing, which the Court sets to commence on May 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in
17
Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
18
Division. Any California Class Member seeking to object to the proposed Settlement may file such
19
objection in writing with the Court and shall serve such objection on Class Counsel and Defendant’s
20
Counsel or may appear at the Final Approval Hearing to make the objection.
21
22
23
24
25
12.
Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby APPROVES the Revised
proposed Class Notice and adopts the following dates and deadlines:
Deadline
Within fourteen (14) calendar days
after entry of the order granting
Preliminary Approval
Action
Defendant shall provide to the Settlement
Administrator a list of all Class Members,
including their name, social security number, last
known address, telephone number, and Individual
Work Weeks.
Within fourteen (14) calendar days
of receipt of the Class Member list
The Settlement Administrator will send the Notice
Packet via first class mail to all Class Members.
26
27
28
4
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
1
2
3
4
5
Deadline
At least 14 days prior to the close of
the Opt In Deadline and Exclusion
Deadline
Action
Class Counsel will file a motion seeking approval
of their Fee and Expense Award and the proposed
Service Payments to the Plaintiffs.
Sixty (60) days following the date
on which the Settlement
Administrator first mails the Notice
Packet to Class Members
Exclusion Deadline: deadline for California Class
Members to request exclusion from the Settlement.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days
after the Settlement Administrator
notifies the Parties of the number of
Exclusion Letters received
If five or more of the California Class Members
submit an exclusion letter, Nielsen will have the
option of canceling the Settlement.
April 16, 2015
Plaintiffs will move the Court for entry of Order of
Final Approval and Judgment.
May 21, 2015
Final Approval Hearing.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13.
Opt In Deadline: deadline for California FLSA
Class members to opt into the Settlement.
The Court further ORDERS that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings in
this Lawsuit, except those contemplated herein and in the Stipulation of Settlement, are stayed.
14.
The Court further ORDERS that to facilitate administration of this Settlement, all
15
California Class Members are hereby enjoined from filing or prosecuting any claims, cases, suits or
16
administrative proceedings (including filing or pursuing claims with the California Division of Labor
17
Standards Enforcement) regarding claims released by the Settlement unless and until such California
18
Class Members have submitted Exclusion Letters with the Settlement Administrator.
19
15.
If for any reason the Court does not execute and file a Final Approval Order and
20
Judgment, the proposed Settlement subject to this Order and all evidence and proceedings had in
21
connection with the Settlement shall be null and void.
22
23
24
16.
The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in this Order or
adjourn or continue the final approval hearing without further notice to the Class.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: January 12, 2015
HON. VINCENT CHHABRIA
27
28
5
[REV.] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT – CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01835 VC
556089 8
REVISED PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE [CLEAN VERSION]
REVISED PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE
[REDLINE VERSION]
REVISED FLSA OPT-IN FORM
[REDLINE VERSION]
REVISED FLSA OPT-IN FORM
[CLEAN VERSION]
FLSA OPT-IN FORM SUBMITTED 11-06-2014
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?