Gayle Smith v. Crossmark Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 27 Stipulation - Fairness Hearing set for 6/17/2015 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/24/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Lara C. de Leon, CA Bar No. 270252
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive, Park Tower, Suite 1500
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone:
714.800.7900
Facsimile:
714.754.1298
CAROLYN B. HALL, CA Bar No. 212311
[e-mail]
TIMOTHY L. REED, CA Bar No. 258034
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
415.442.4810
Facsimile:
415.442.4870

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendants
CROSSMARK, INC. and CHI MANAGEMENT GROUP, LP
ERIC A. GROVER, CA Bar No. 136080
[e-mail]
ROBERT W. SPENCER, CA Bar No. 238491
[e-mail]
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Marker Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone:
415.543.1305
Facsimile:
415.543.7861
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CLAY TRIPP AND KAREN SOLBERG

18
19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22
23

CLAY TRIPP and KAREN SOLBERG, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and all aggrieved employees

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO
Consolidated with Case No. 14-cv-4461-WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
RESET FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
DATE

vs.
CROSSMARK, INC., CHI MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

Action Filed:
Action Removed:

June 4, 2013
July 26, 2013

Defendant.
Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER

1

Plaintiffs Clay Tripp, Karen Solberg and Gayle Smith (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their

2

undersigned counsel, and Defendants CROSSMARK, INC. and CHI MANAGEMENT GROUP,

3

LP (“Defendants” or “CROSSMARK”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate

4

and agree as follows:

5

1. During the process of finalizing the class data and estimated settlement payments as

6

part of the class notice process several issues arose, including that a number of

7

CROSSMARK employees who met the literal definition of a “Settlement Class 1

8

(Hourly Class) Member” did not work even one “Eligible Shift” (i.e., a shift of six or

9

more hours), thus subjecting them to the release but no settlement payment. In addition,

10

the parties noted that approximately a number of other Settlement 1 Class Members had

11

estimated pre-tax settlement payments of less than $50 based on their number of

12

Eligible Shifts.

13

2. The parties have met and conferred and agreed to clarify the definition of Settlement

14

Class 1 to exclude all hourly employees who otherwise meet the current definition of

15

Settlement Class 1 but did not work a single shift of six or more hours during the

16

Settlement 1 Class Period, June 4, 2009 through October 31, 2014. Such individuals

17

will not be part of Settlement Class 1 and will have no rights extinguished as a result of

18

the settlement.

19

Settlement Class 2, only the limited Settlement Class 2 release will apply.

To the extent such individuals also fall within the definition of

20

3. In addition, the parties have agreed that, regardless of the number of Eligible Shifts

21

worked by members of Settlement Class 1, the minimum pre-tax settlement payment

22

will be $50. In order to provide for that minimum payment without reducing the

23

payment to any Settlement Class 1 member with an estimated pre-tax settlement

24

payment over $50, Class Counsel has agreed to reduce their maximum attorneys’ fees

25

request from 30% ($420,000) to 25% ($350,000) and reallocate the $70,000 difference

26

to the Settlement 1 Class Members.

27
28

4. The parties have revised the approved Settlement Class Notice consistent with the
above agreements.

A red-lined version of the revised Settlement Class Notice is
1
Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2

5. The Settlement Class Notice approved as part of the Court’s January 26, 2015 order

3

granting preliminary approval (Docket # 47) was scheduled to be mailed on March 12,

4

2015. The parties delayed the mailing to work through the issues identified above. If

5

approved by the Court, the revised Settlement Class Notice and Claim Forms can be

6

mailed out by March 27, 2015. The mailing delay requires a change to the current May

7

27, 2015 final approval hearing date. The parties request that the final approval motion

8

be reset for June 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

9
10
11

THEREFORE, the parties request that the Court enter an Order:
1. Approving the above stipulations and revised Settlement Class Notice and resetting the
final approval hearing for June 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

12
13
14
15

DATED: March 23, 2015
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.

16
17
18
19
20

By: /s/ Lara C. de Leon
Lara C. de Leon
Carolyn B. Hall
Timothy L. Reed
Attorneys for Defendants
CROSSMARK, INC. and CHI MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO

1

DATED: March 23, 2015
KELLER GROVER LLP

2
3
By: /s/ Eric A. Grover
Eric A. Grover
Robert W. Spencer

4
5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CLAY TRIPP and KAREN SOLBERG

7
8
9
10

DATED: March 23, 2015
KAWAHITO, SHRAGA & WESTRICK

11
12
13

By: /s/ Shawn C. Westrick
Shawn C. Westrick

14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiff
GAYLE SMITH

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO

1
2

ORDER
Good cause appearing therefore, the Court herby approves the revised “Settlement Class 1

3 (Hourly Class) Member” definition, approves the minimum pre-tax settlement payment of $50 to
4 Settlement 1 Class Members and approves the revised Settlement Class Notice. The revised
5 Settlement Class Notice and appropriate Claim Forms shall be mailed by no later than March 27,
6

2015 (the “Notice Date”). The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for June 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

7

in Courtroom 2 of this Court. Class Counsel shall file a motion for approval of reasonable

8

attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses and a motion for approval of the service

9

award/general release payments for Settlement Class Representatives Tripp, Solberg and Smith no

10

later than 15 days after the Notice Date. If the motion for final approval of the settlement will be

11

unopposed, the motion and all supporting papers may be filed 14 calendar days before the Final

12

Approval Hearing. The Final Approval Hearing may be adjourned or continued without further

13

notice to the Class.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: _March 24, 2015
Hon. William H. Orrick
United States District Court Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER

Case No. 3:13-cv-03480-WHO