Van Kempen v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
Filing
65
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ADDRESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN 57 ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/24/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ROY VAN KEMPEN,
Case No. 15-cv-00660-HSG
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO
ADDRESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN
ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL
Re: Dkt. No. 57
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On August 1, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary
13
approval of class and collective action settlement based on two obvious deficiencies: (1) an
14
improper opt-in mechanism for the FLSA group; and (2) an overly broad release. See Dkt. No. 57
15
at 14. In addition, the Court identified several other deficiencies present in the agreement, and
16
stated that they would need to be remedied or explained in any future motion for preliminary
17
approval. See id. at 17-20. However, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for preliminary approval fails to
18
address some of the Court’s concerns. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to explain: (1) how
19
Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that there are “two discrete settlement subclasses”--the FLSA
20
overtime group and California vacation class--maps to the three settlement classes described in the
21
agreement, see id. at 18 n.4; compare Dkt. No. 49 ¶ 16 with SA ¶ 8; (2) how recovery will be
22
allocated to the California overtime class such that it might fall within the range of possible
23
approval, see Dkt. No. 57 at 17-18; (3) the discrepancy between the settlement agreement’s
24
contention that the Ambriz settlement releases all of the claims set forth in the operative complaint
25
except for the overtime and vacation time claims and Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that the
26
parties have agreed to fully compromise claims for late and improper termination wages under
27
California Labor Code Section 203, see id. at 18; and (4) who would receive the different versions
28
of the notice forms, and why, see id. at 20.
1
2
3
The parties are thus DIRECTED to submit a joint supplemental statement addressing each
of the above-referenced questions by January 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm.
In addition, to enable class members to review class counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees,
4
class counsel shall include language in the settlement notices indicating the deadline for filing the
5
attorneys’ fees motion, specifically stating the deadline for any class member objections to the
6
fees motion, and informing class members that the motion and supporting materials will be
7
available for viewing by request from the Claim Administrator or class counsel. See In re
8
Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that under
9
Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to
attorneys’ fees motion). That motion shall be filed with the Court and posted on the settlement
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
website not later than 20 days before class members’ objections are due. The parties are therefore
12
also DIRECTED to submit a revised notice form that addresses the Court’s concern by January
13
27, 2017 at 3:00 pm. The revised notices shall include redlined or highlighted copies clearly
14
identifying the modifications.
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/24/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?