Van Kempen v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING 60 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/6/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017)

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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

v.
9
10

MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Pending before the Court Before is Plaintiff Roy Van Kempen’s (“Plaintiff”) revised

12
13

motion for preliminary approval of a collective and class action settlement. Dkt. No. 60 (“Mot.”).

14

The proposed settlement would resolve Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims against Defendant

15

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. (“Defendant”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207, et

16

seq. (“FLSA”), and various California statutes. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), this motion is

17

deemed suitable for disposition without oral argument. After careful consideration of the

18

settlement agreement and the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for the

19

reasons set forth below.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

a.

22

Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt delivery driver of industrial and

23

medical gases. Dkt. No. 48 (“Van Kempen Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4. In his operative complaint, Plaintiff

24

alleges that Defendant intentionally failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses he received in

25

calculating his rate of overtime pay. On that basis, Plaintiff claims that Defendant systematically

26

underpaid his overtime wages in violation of § 207(a)(1) of the FLSA and § 510 of the California

27

Labor Code. Dkt. No. 26 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 38-39, 49. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant

28

had a “use-it-or-lose it” vacation time policy by which accrued vacation time was automatically

Factual Allegations and Procedural History

1

forfeited if not used within a specified time period. Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff claims that this vacation-

2

time policy violated California Labor Code § 227.3. Id. ¶ 66.1 These claims are asserted in both

3

Plaintiff’s individual capacity and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. Id. ¶ 9.
Defendant removed this action from state court under federal question, diversity, and Class

4
5

Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 & Ex. A. In this Court, Plaintiff amended his initial

6

complaint to add new state law claims and propounded formal and informal written discovery on

7

Defendant. See Dkt. Nos. 26 & 49 (“Hague Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 13. The parties then participated in a

8

private mediation before a retired state court judge, and the case settled. Id. ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 42.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action

10

settlement on January 10, 2016. See Dkt. No. 45. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on August

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

1, 2016. See Dkt. No. 57. In its decision, the Court (1) granted provisional class certification of

12

the nationwide FLSA overtime class, and California overtime and vacation classes, see id. at 12;

13

(2) appointed Plaintiff as class representative, id., and Sutton Hague Law Corporation as class

14

counsel, id. at 13; and (3) denied preliminary settlement approval due to the proposed FLSA opt-in

15

agreement and release language, id. at 14, 16. The Court also noted problems with several other

16

portions of the proposed settlement agreement, including its (1) provision of preferential treatment

17

to Plaintiff, id. at 16-17; (2) failure to explain whether the California overtime class would receive

18

settlement payments within the range of possible approval, id. at 17; (3) failure to specify whether

19

certain claims fall within the related class action settlement described below, id. at 18; and (4)

20

failure to specify which putative class members would receive the proposed notice forms and why,

21

id. at 20.

22

b.

23

Before turning to the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, the Court addresses the

Related Class Action Settlement

24

class action settlement in a partially overlapping lawsuit, Ambriz v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., No.

25

2:14-cv-04546 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016).2 In that case, the plaintiffs, who were also employed as

26
27
28

1
2

Plaintiff’s other asserted claims are not included in the proposed settlement, as explained below.
Plaintiff previously requested judicial notice of materials from the Ambriz action, including the
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the operative complaint, and a
declaration filed in support of preliminary approval. Dkt. No. 50 & Exs. 1-3. Plaintiff also
2

1

delivery drivers by Defendant, asserted a variety of wage-and-hour claims under California law.

2

Dkt. No. 50, Ex. 2. The parties entered into a class action settlement, as to which the Court

3

granted final approval before the original settlement motion in this case was heard by this Court.

4

Dkt. No. 54 ¶ 4.
The Ambriz settlement class includes “all current and former drivers who were employed

5
6

by Defendant from March 5, 2010 through June 25, 2015.” Dkt. No. 55, Ex. 1 ¶ 2. It releases, by

7

the account of the parties to this action, every claim asserted in the operative complaint except for

8

“those causes of action related to unpaid accrued vacation days and unpaid overtime based on a

9

miscalculation of the regular rate of pay.” Dkt. No. 46 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 50, Ex. 3 ¶¶ 52-53;
see also Dkt. No. 66 at 7. The instant settlement, therefore, purportedly functions only to “fill

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

gaps” in the Ambriz settlement. See Dkt. No. 46 at 1, 7.

12

II.

13
14
15

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
With this background in mind, the Court now describes the key terms of the proposed class

action settlement in this case. See Mot. Ex. 1 (“SA”).
Class Definitions: There are three groups of proposed class members: (1) an FLSA

16

overtime group, comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant

17

nationwide who worked overtime while entitled to non-discretionary bonus pay and who opt in to

18

the group; (2) a California overtime class, comprised of all current and former non-exempt

19

employees of Defendant in California who worked overtime while entitled to non-discretionary

20

bonus pay and who do not opt out of the settlement; and (3) a California vacation-time class,

21

comprised of all persons employed by Defendant in California who accrued vacation time but

22

forfeited it. Id. ¶ 8. The class period for all three proposed classes runs from January 9, 2011,

23

through the date that the Court enters final approval of the collective and class action settlement.

24

Id. ¶ 10. In total, the parties estimate that there are approximately 2,400 putative class members.

25
26
27
28

submitted two supplemental declarations of counsel that attach the minute order and order
granting final approval of the class action settlement in Ambriz. Dkt. Nos. 54 & 55, Exs. 1-2. In
its previous order denying the parties’ motion for preliminary approval, the Court took judicial
notice of these materials to the extent they explained the procedural posture of this case, but not
for the truth of the matters asserted therein. See Dkt. No. 57 at 2 n.2.
3

1

Id. ¶ 9.

2

Monetary Relief: Defendant will pay a gross total of $370,000 to resolve this action, less

3

attorneys’ fees up to $103,600 and up to $15,000 in litigation costs, a $5,000 incentive award for

4

Plaintiff, settlement administration costs not anticipated to exceed $25,000, and 75% of the $5,000

5

penalty under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2699. Id. ¶¶ 23-28.

6

Based on these assumptions, the parties estimate that the putative classes will receive a total of

7

$217,650. Id. ¶ 34(a). Fifty-two percent of this amount is allocated to the FLSA nationwide and

8

California overtime classes. Id. ¶ 33. The remaining 48% is allocated to the California vacation

9

class. Id. Each individual putative class member’s payment within each proposed class will be
calculated by dividing the net settlement amount by the total number of weeks that all members of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the relevant proposed class worked during the class period and then multiplying that number of

12

compensable workweeks that the individual worked. Id. ¶ 34(b)(i). Regardless of the outcome of

13

this formula, each putative class member will receive a monetary payment of at least $25. Id.

14

Cy Pres Recipients: Settlement checks left uncashed for 180 days by California class

15

members will revert to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement unclaimed wage

16

fund. Id. ¶ 34(b)(vii). Settlement checks similarly left uncashed by FLSA class members will

17

revert in equal part to the Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy and the UCLA

18

Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Id.

19

Release: There is both a class and individual component to the proposed release. Putative

20

class members would release “any and all applicable claims . . . which were asserted in the Action

21

or could have been asserted against the Released Parties based on the claims, matters, transactions

22

or occurrences referred to in the operative Complaint during the Claims Period (hereinafter

23

“Released Claims”). Id. ¶ 66. Released Claims also include “claims under or pertaining to the

24

Fair Labor Standards Act . . . any and all PAGA penalties or other relief under California Business

25

and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq [that could have been raised in the operative

26

Complaint] . . . and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542.” Id. Plaintiff, as class

27

representative, would release these same claims. Id. ¶ 69. In addition, the agreement states that

28

“[i]t is understood and agreed that the [settlement] will not release Named Plaintiff from claims, if
4

1

any, for worker’s compensation, unemployment, or disability benefits of any nature.” Id. ¶ 69.

2

Class Notice: The parties intend to send class notice packages to all last-known addresses

3

of putative class members by US mail within fourteen calendar days of the Court’s order granting

4

preliminary approval. Id. ¶¶ 38, 39. As part of that class notice package, there are two different

5

class notice forms. See Dkt. No. 66 Exs. 1 & 2. One notice is for nationwide FLSA overtime

6

putative class members and the other is for California putative class members. Id. at 9-10.
Opt-Out & Opt-In Procedures: Putative members of the California overtime and vacation

7

classes have the right to opt out of the settlement by submitting a request for exclusion form

9

within 60 days after the settlement administrator transmits class notice. SA ¶ 47. If five percent

10

of either the California overtime or vacation putative classes opt out of the settlement, Defendant

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

shall have the unilateral right to terminate the settlement agreement. Id. ¶¶ 42.

12

Putative members of the FLSA class must affirmatively opt in to participate in the FLSA

13

settlement, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Id. ¶ 43. FLSA overtime putative class members

14

must opt in by submitting a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator not later than 60 calendar

15

days from the mailing of the Notice Packet. Id.; see also id. ¶ 32.

16

Class Representative and Class Counsel: Plaintiff has been appointed class representative

17

and Sutton Hague Law Corporation has been appointed class counsel. See Dkt. No. 57 at 12-13.

18

Incentive Award: Plaintiff seeks a $5,000 incentive award as class representative. SA ¶ 26.

19

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorneys’ fees equal to 28% of the

20

gross settlement amount and litigation costs up to $15,000. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. Defendant does not

21

oppose this request. Id. If the fees and costs award that the Court approves is less than the

22

requested amount, the difference will revert to Defendant and not to the putative classes. Id.

23

III.

PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION

24

The Court previously granted provisional certification of the nationwide FLSA overtime

25

and California overtime and vacation classes under FRCP 23(a) and (b). See Dkt. No. 57 at 10,

26

12. The Court also previously granted provisional certification of Plaintiff as class representative,

27

and Sutton Hague Law Corporation as class counsel. See id. at 13.

28

//
5

1

IV.

Having already granted provisional certification, the Court now considers whether the

2
3

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

parties’ class action settlement should be preliminarily approved on its substantive terms.

4

A.

Legal Standard

5

Rule 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be

6

settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). “The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to

7

protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.”

8

In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, before a district

9

court approves a class action settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is “fundamentally
fair, adequate and reasonable.” In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2008).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Courts generally apply the same standard to FLSA collective action settlements. See, e.g., Tijero

12

v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 301 F.R.D. 314, 323-25 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (applying Rule 23(e) standard to an

13

FLSA collective action settlement).

14

Where the parties reach a class action settlement prior to class certification, district courts

15

apply “a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be required

16

under Rule 23(e).” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks

17

and citation omitted). In those situations, courts “must be particularly vigilant not only for explicit

18

collusion, but also for more subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-

19

interests and that of certain class members to infect the negotiations.” In re Bluetooth Headset

20

Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011).

21

Courts scrutinize whether the proposed settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious,

22

informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not grant improper

23

preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments of the class; and (4) falls within

24

the range of possible approval. See In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079

25

(N.D. Cal. 2007). In passing judgment on a proposed settlement, courts lack the authority to

26

“delete, modify or substitute certain provisions. The settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.”

27

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

28

//
6

1
2
3

B.

Analysis
1.

The Settlement Process

The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the parties settled the action.

4

“An initial presumption of fairness is usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class

5

counsel after arm’s-length bargaining.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C–08–5198 EMC, 2011

6

WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011). Plaintiff’s counsel avers that both parties

7

vigorously litigated the case before a successful mediation. Hague Decl. ¶ 4. That mediation was

8

conducted before the Hon. Peter D. Lichtman (Ret.), a former state court judge with experience in

9

California wage-and-hour litigation. Id. Based on this information, the Court finds that the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

settlement process weighs in favor of approving the proposed settlement.
2.

Obvious Deficiencies

The second factor the Court considers is whether there are obvious deficiencies in the

13

settlement agreement. The Court previously found two obvious deficiencies in the original

14

settlement agreement that defeated approval: (1) the FLSA opt-in mechanism failed to require

15

class members to give their consent in writing and have it filed with the Court; and (2) the scope

16

of the proposed release was overly broad. See Dkt. No. 57 at 14-15. Plaintiff has now corrected

17

those deficiencies.

18

First, the settlement agreement provides that nationwide FLSA overtime putative class

19

members must opt in to the class by returning a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator.

20

SA ¶¶ 8, 32, 43. Class counsel will then file the Claim Forms with the Court. Id. ¶ 46. This

21

comports with the FLSA, which specifies how a putative class member must opt-in: “No

22

employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to

23

become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” 29

24

U.S.C. § 216(b) (emphasis added).

25

Second, the revised release language is no longer overly broad, and only requires class

26

members to release “any and all applicable claims . . . which were asserted in the Action or could

27

have been asserted against the Released Parties based on the claims, matters, transactions or

28

occurrences referred to in the operative Complaint during the Claims Period.” SA ¶ 66. Released
7

Claims include “claims under or pertaining to the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . any and all PAGA

2

penalties or other relief under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq [that

3

could have been raised in the operative Complaint] . . . and all rights under California Civil Code

4

Section 1542.” Id. While the release still includes an apparent carve-out for Named Plaintiff that

5

states that “the Agreement will not release Named Plaintiff from claims, if any, for worker’s

6

compensation, unemployment, or disability benefits of any nature,” the portion of the release

7

pertaining to the putative class members does not appear to be any narrower, as it specifically

8

tracks the claims asserted in the case and would therefore also not release class members’

9

worker’s compensation, unemployment, or disability benefits claims. See SA ¶ 66; see also Dkt.

10

No. 60 at 2 (Supp. Brief) (“the Settlement makes no attempt whatsoever to cause Class Members

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

to release any claims that would fall outside of the four corners of the Complaint, and tracks

12

directly to Plaintiff’s allegations. Limited as such, the Settlement could not possibly reach claims

13

for worker’s compensation, unemployment, and/or disability benefit claims, as none of the

14

allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint implicate any such claims.”). Accordingly, the Court finds

15

that there are no obvious deficiencies in the proposed agreement.

16
17

3.

Preferential Treatment

Under the third factor, the Court examines whether the settlement agreement provides

18

preferential treatment to any class member. While the Court previously found that the original

19

agreement impermissibly granted Plaintiff a narrower release than the rest of the putative class, the

20

Court now finds that the revised release language remedies the Court’s prior concerns for the

21

reasons discussed above. See Dkt. No. 57 at 16-17.

22
23

4.

Settlement Within Range of Possible Approval

The fourth and final factor that the Court considers is whether the settlement is within the

24

range of possible approval. “To determine whether a settlement ‘falls within the range of possible

25

approval,’ courts focus on ‘substantive fairness and adequacy’ and ‘consider plaintiffs’ expected

26

recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.’” Schuchardt v. Law Office of Rory

27

W. Clark, No. 15-cv-01329, 2016 WL 232435, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) (citation omitted).

28

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the nationwide FLSA overtime and California
8

1

overtime classes will together receive 52% of the Net Settlement Amount, totaling approximately

2

$113,178. See Dkt. No. 66 at 4. This amount will be split evenly between the two groups, with

3

each receiving approximately $56,589. See id. This will provide overtime class members with the

4

full value of their estimated unpaid overtime ($96,000) plus a compromised amount for liquidated

5

damages ($17,178 of $96,000 maximum). Hague Decl. ¶ 16(a); see also 29 U.S.C. § 216 (c)

6

(employees who do not receive proper overtime wages may recover liquidated damages that equal

7

the amount of actual damages). The Court preliminarily finds that this is a fair and reasonable

8

result because class members would receive all of their actual damages in addition to some special

9

damages.

10

With respect to the California vacation class, Plaintiff’s counsel avers that the class will

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

receive $104,472 out of a maximum potential class recovery of $191,500. Hague Decl. ¶ 16(b).

12

The Court preliminarily finds that this proposed settlement is fair and reasonable given the

13

inherent risks of litigation, and the possibility that the Court could find these claims precluded by

14

the Ambriz settlement.

15

Finally, although Plaintiff’s moving papers state that it is the parties’ belief that the Ambriz

16

settlement releases all of the claims set forth in the operative complaint but for the overtime and

17

vacation time claims discussed above, see Mot. at 1, Plaintiff’s counsel avers in a declaration that

18

the parties have agreed to fully compromise claims for late and improper termination wages under

19

California Labor Code § 203. Hague Decl. ¶ 16(c). Plaintiff’s counsel values those claims at

20

$110,000, but contends that full compromise of their value is appropriate because of the difficulty

21

in showing the willfulness necessary to trigger liability under § 203. Id. The Court was thus

22

initially unable to determine whether these claims were included within the scope of the Ambriz

23

settlement. However, the parties have now clarified via supplemental briefing that “the Settlement

24

Class Members’ claim for 203 penalties on the basis of any unpaid wages and/or unpaid overtime

25

. . . are entirely extinguished, thus supporting Class Counsel’s decision to fully compromise such

26

claims and assign them no value.” Dkt. No. 66 at 7. The Court thus preliminarily finds that this is

27

an acceptable compromise of the putative class members’ § 203 claim.

28

In sum, the Court finds that each class settlement falls within the acceptable range of
9

1

approval.

2

5.

Cy Pres Distribution

The Court must also evaluate whether the parties’ proposed cy pres awards are appropriate.

3
4

A cy pres award must qualify as “the next best distribution” to giving the funds to class members.

5

Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012). Indeed, “[n]ot just any worthy recipient

6

can qualify as an appropriate cy pres beneficiary.” Id. “[T]here must be a driving nexus between

7

the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries.” Id. (citation omitted). That is to say, a cy pres

8

award must be “guided by (1) the objectives of the underlying statute(s) and (2) the interests of the

9

silent class members, and must not benefit a group too remote from the plaintiff class[.]” Id.

10

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Here, the parties have selected the Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy

12

and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment as cy pres recipients in the event

13

that FLSA putative class members do not cash their settlement checks within 180 days.

14

SA ¶ 34(b)(vii). The former entity advocates for employee rights3 and the latter is “a

15

multidisciplinary research center dedicated to the study, teaching, and discussion of labor and

16

employment issues.”4 These entities fully share the objectives of the FLSA in promoting workers’

17

rights. For that reason, the Court finds that there is a sufficient nexus between these two cy pres

18

recipients and the putative FLSA overtime class. Similarly, California class members who do not

19

cash their settlement checks within 180 days will revert to California’s Division of Labor

20

Standards Enforcement unclaimed wage fund. Id. ¶ 34(b)(vii). This entity also fully shares the

21

objectives of the California wage-and-hour statutes at issue. Accordingly, the Court approves of

22

all of the cy pres recipients.

23

IV.

For Rule 23(b)(3) class actions, “the court must direct to class members the best notice that

24
25

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE PLAN

is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be

26
3

27
28

About, The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy,
http://employeerightsadvocacy.org/about/ (last visited July 26, 2016).
4
About IRLE, UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment,
http://www.irle.ucla.edu/about/ (last visited July 26, 2016).
10

1

identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). “The notice must clearly and

2

concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition

3

of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter

4

an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from

5

the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion;

6

and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). In

7

addition, the “FLSA requires the court to provide potential plaintiffs ‘accurate and timely notice

8

concerning the pendency of the collective action, so that they can make informed decisions about

9

whether to participate.’” Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(quoting Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989)).
The parties have attached two different class notice forms to the settlement agreement. See

12

Dkt. No. 66 Exs. 1 & 2. One form is for members of both the California overtime and vacation

13

classes and the other is for members of the nationwide FLSA overtime class. The FLSA overtime

14

class will receive a copy of Exhibit 1, which includes an “FLSA Opt-In Claim Form,” while the

15

California overtime and vacation classes will receive a copy of Exhibit 2, which includes an

16

“Exclusion form.” Id. The different notice forms are necessary because FLSA class members will

17

need to affirmatively opt-in to the settlement, while California class members will automatically

18

be included unless they choose to opt-out. Id. at 9-10. Having also satisfied the notice

19

requirements listed above, the parties’ proposed class notice plan is approved.

20

Turning to the issue of settlement administration, the parties have agreed that a third party,

21

Simpluris, will administer the class notice process. SA ¶ 35. Specifically, Simpluris will prepare

22

individualized class notice forms, perform an initial national change of address search, use

23

standard skip-tracing devices to obtain forwarding addresses for old addresses, mail class notice to

24

putative class members via first-class US mail, track undelivered notices, process any exclusion

25

requests, establish a settlement fund, administer payments, and establish a toll-free number to take

26

inquiries from class members. Id. ¶¶ 20, 35, 38, 41, 47. The Court finds that Simpluris is

27

qualified to perform the tasks associated with administering the notice plan and approves

28

Simpluris as the administrator. The parties ask to have $25,000 allocated from the gross
11

1

settlement fund to pay for settlement administration costs. Id. ¶ 35. While this amount is higher

2

than many class action settlements that the Court reviews, the parties have agreed that any leftover

3

money shall revert to the class fund, which is acceptable to the Court.

4

V.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
The settlement agreement provides that Plaintiff will file a motion for attorneys’ fees equal

5

to twenty-eight percent (28%) of the gross settlement amount and costs of $15,000. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25.

7

Defendant has agreed not to oppose said motion. Id. To enable class members to review class

8

counsel’s motion, class counsel has included language in the settlement notices indicating the

9

deadline for filing the attorneys’ fees motion, stating the deadline for any class member objections

10

to the fees motion, and informing class members that the motion and supporting materials will be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

available for viewing by request from the Claim Administrator or class counsel. See Dkt. No. 66

12

Exs. 1 & 2. That motion will be filed with the Court and posted on the settlement website not later

13

than 20 days before class members’ objections are due.

14

VI.

CONCLUSION

15

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

16

approval of class and collective action settlement. Finding no need for an additional preliminary

17

approval hearing, the Court SETS the following schedule:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Event
Deadline to Provide Settlement Administrator with Class
Member Database
Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Send Class Notice,
Opt-In Forms, and Exclusion Forms (where applicable)
Deadline to File Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Award
Deadline to Submit Objections
Deadline for California Members to Opt-Out
Deadline for FLSA Members to Opt-In
Deadline to File Motion for Final Approval
Final Fairness Hearing and Hearing on Motions

Date
February 20, 2017
March 2, 2017
April 7, 2017
May 1, 2017
May 1, 2017
May 1, 2017
May 12, 2017
June 8, 2017

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/6/2017
2/7/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
12