Ash et al v. Bayside Solutions, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER REGARDING HEARING ON 50 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA SETTLEMENT - On or before September 8, 2015, the parties (or plaintiffs) shall file with the Court a short brief and/or other materials addressing the concerns of the court outlined in th is order. In addition, at the hearing on September 9, 2015, the parties should be prepared to discuss the scope of the named and opt-in plaintiffs' releases. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/01/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES WARREN ASH, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02183-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER REGARDING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA
SETTLEMENT

v.
9
10

BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

A hearing on the parties’ joint motion for approval of FLSA settlement is set for

13

September 9, 2015. I have several concerns about the settlement that the parties may be able to

14

address in advance of the hearing. On or before September 8, 2015, the parties (or plaintiffs) shall

15

file with the Court a short brief and/or other materials addressing the following subjects:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1) why the notice of collective action was sent to only 119 individuals, instead of
approximately 140, as represented in the briefing on conditional certification.
(2) what efforts were made to notify individuals of the collective action, and why only 13
opted-in.
(3) the potential range of recovery of each opt-in plaintiff, including his or her approximate
number of overtime hours worked, and his or her regular hourly rate.
(4) whether the dismissal of plaintiffs’ class action claims is appropriate under Federal

23

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). See Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408

24

(9th Cir. 1989); Lyons v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 11-cv-01232-CW, 2012 WL 5940846, at *1 n.1

25

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012).

26

In addition, at the hearing on September 9, 2015, the parties should be prepared to discuss

27

the scope of the named and opt-in plaintiffs’ releases. Among other things, I will be interested in

28

why the definition of “Released Persons” extends to “any party that . . . could have been named as

1

a defendant in the litigation and any individual or entity which could be jointly liable with

2

defendant and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, including any party that was or

3

could have been named as a defendant in the litigation.”

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2