Juan Saravia v. Dynamex, Inc. et al

Filing 252

ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED FORM OF NOTICE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/30/16. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET
SERVICES, LLC, DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS EAST, INC., and DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS WEST, INC.,

16

ORDER REJECTING
PROPOSED FORM
OF NOTICE

Defendants.
/

17
18

No. C 14-05003 WHA

The proposed form of notice states, “If you do not exclude yourself, challenge, or object,

19

and fail to cash your check, you will still remain a part of the case and will still release all

20

claims asserted in the lawsuit.” This is contrary to the representations made at the hearing on

21

preliminary approval. The parties shall explain this discrepancy IMMEDIATELY.

22
23
24

Additionally, the parties shall please make the following edits (a copy with these edits is
appended to this order):
•

On page 1, delete the text “This Notice Is Not A Communication
From the Court . . . .” through the end of that paragraph.

26

•

On page 1, the first paragraph below the line should be in present
tense.

27

•

On page 1, “The Court has potentially approved this settlement”
should read “The Court has preliminarily approved this settlement.”
Please also add the text “, subject to a further hearing to consider
any objections by opt-ins.” to the end of that sentence.

25

28

1

•

On page 2, add the following sentence to the end of the first full
paragraph: “You have the right to opt-out of the settlement, as
described below.”

•

On page 2, delete the sentence that begins “A person who does not
exclude himself . . . .”

•

The formatting of the boxes on pages 2 and 3 are inconsistent.
Two boxes have additional lines at the end of the text, two do not.
Please resolve this inconsistency. (The additional space at the end
is preferable.)

•

On page 3, in the “Challenge/Object But Do Not Exclude Yourself”
box, the sentence that begins “If you a challenge or object” appears
to be missing a word.

•

On page 3, in the paragraph with the heading “What are the terms
of the Settlement?” there is a reference to “calculated overtime.”
The redlined copy of the notice reveals that the phrase “calculated
overtime” was edited to “potential overtime” in the following
paragraph. Please resolve this inconsistency.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

The term “calculated overtime hours” is preferable, inasmuch as the
term “potential overtime hours” implies that the calculated number
of overtime hours could later be adjusted downward. (To be clear,
the Court understands the term “calculated” to preserve Dynamex’s
contention that it owes no overtime hours.)

13
14
15

•

On page 4, in the paragraph with the heading “Payments,” place a
comma after “i.e.” in the phrase “i.e. Settlement Class Members.”

•

On page 4, the paragraph below the “Estimated Settlement
Payment” appears to have several sentences with only one space
between them, which is inconsistent with the format of the rest of
the notice. Please resolve this inconsistency.

•

On page 5, the first sentence should refer to “the check that will be
promptly sent after the Court finally approves the settlement.”
(Adding the word “promptly”.)

•

On page 5, there are three lines between the “How You Get a
Payment” section and the “Excluding Yourself From the
Settlement” section, but there is only one line between subsequent
sections. Please resolve this inconsistency.

•

In the paragraph “How do I exclude myself?” the final sentence
before the address block should read “The letter must be dated and
signed, postmarked on or before March 2, 2017, and sent to and
received at the following address:”

•

On page 5, the heading “The Lawyers Representing You” should be
centered, to be consistent with other headings at the same level.

•

From pages 1 through 5, paragraphs are not indented. Beginning on
page 5, they are indented. Please resolve this inconsistency. (No
indentation is preferable.)

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

2

1

•

On page 6, place one blank line above the address block at the top
and indent the address block an additional tab.

•

All references to the office of the Clerk of the Court (pages 2 and 6)
should refer to the 16th Floor, not the 19th Floor. (To be clear, the
reference to the location of the fairness hearing on page 8 should
not be changed.)

•

On page 7, the second sentence in the paragraph with the heading
“What is the difference between challenging/objecting and
excluding?” should be edited to read “If you choose to challenge or
object, you will stay in the settlement class irrespective of those
challenges, unless you send a timely conditional request to be
excluded, as explained above, in which case you can choose to
remove yourself if those challenges are overruled.”

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

typographical and formatting errors, the parties must proofread the next version carefully,

11
For the Northern District of California

Although the Court has thoroughly reviewed the proposed notice to identify

10

United States District Court

9

particularly since the edits above could introduce new errors. Additionally, the parties must

12

ensure that all changes and corrections are properly reflected in the translated form of notice.

13
14

The proposed form of notice is NOT APPROVED. The parties shall please file a second
amended proposed form of notice by JANUARY 3 AT NOON.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: December 30 , 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3