Hernandez et al v. Sephora USA, Inc.

Filing 104

ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/31/2020. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2020)

Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LACEY HERNANDEZ; and
BRENDA MORALES,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SEPHORA USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 16-CV-05392-WHO
[COLLECTIVE LAWSUIT PURSUANT TO
29 USC §216(b)]
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL
APPROVAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT
OF DISMISSAL
DATE:
August 26, 2020
TIME:
2:00 p.m.
COURTROOM: 2

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 4

1

The motion of Plaintiffs Lacey Hernandez and Brenda Morales for Final

2

Approval of Collective Lawsuit Settlement came on regularly for hearing on August

3

26, 2020. Named Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel of

4

record, Matthew F. Archbold, of Deason & Archbold; Defendant appeared through

5

their counsel of record, Andrew R. Livingston, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,

6

LLP.

7

Having received and considered the Status of Settlement Administration and

8

Notice Procedures, and Request for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement,

9

Final Award of Collective Action Counsel's Attorney Fees and Costs, and Named

10

Plaintiff Service Payments filed herewith, and all exhibits and declarations attached

11

thereto, the within Judgment is entered as follows:

12
13
14

1.

All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the

Settlement Stipulation.
2.

The Court finds that the Settlement Stipulation has been reached as a

15

result of intensive, serious and non-collusive arms-length negotiations. The Court

16

further finds that the Parties have conducted extensive investigation and research

17

and counsel for the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions.

18

The Court also finds that settlement at this time will avoid additional substantial

19

costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be presented by the further

20

prosecution of the Lawsuit.

21

3.

The Court finds that distribution of the Notice directed to the Opt-In

22

Plaintiffs as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation and the other matters set forth

23

therein have been completed in conformity with the Order of Preliminary Approval,

24

including individual Notice of Settlement by first class mail to all Opt-In Plaintiffs

25

who could be identified through reasonable effort. The Court finds the Notice of

26

Settlement sent to all Opt-In Plaintiffs provided due and adequate notice of the

27

proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement

28

set forth in the Settlement Stipulation, to all persons entitled to such Notice of
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 4

1

Settlement, and the Notice of Settlement fully satisfied the requirements of due

2

process. No Opt-In Plaintiff objected to the settlement.

3

4.

This Court hereby approves the settlement set forth in the Settlement

4

Stipulation and finds that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and directs

5

the Parties to effectuate the settlement according to its terms. The Court has

6

reviewed the monetary recovery that is being granted as part of the settlement and

7

recognizes the significant value to the Opt-In Plaintiffs of that recovery.

8
9

5.

The Court hereby orders Defendants to distribute the Maximum

Settlement Amount in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Stipulation.

10

6.

The Court hereby finds the Collective Action Counsel Fees and Costs

11

requested to be reasonable and awards the Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of One

12

Hundred

13

($127,375.00) and Litigation Expenses in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Four

14

Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($17,425.00) and orders that said Collective Action

15

Counsel Fees and Costs be paid pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

16

Twenty-Seven

7.

Thousand

Three

Hundred

Seventy-Five

Dollars

The Court hereby approves service awards to Named Plaintiffs in the

17

amount of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for each Named Plaintiff.

18

The Court hereby orders the Named Plaintiff service awards be paid pursuant to the

19

Settlement Stipulation.

20

8.

The Court hereby approves Settlement Administration Costs to the

21

Settlement Administrator in the amount of Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars

22

($8,700.00). The Court hereby orders Defendant to pay the Settlement

23

Administration Costs in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement

24

Stipulation.

25

////

26
27
28

9.

The Effective Settlement Date shall be the thirtieth (30th) day following

entry of this Order.
10.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 4

1

hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation and

2

enforcement of the settlement and Settlement Stipulation, and all orders and

3

judgments entered in connection therewith.

4

11.

If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with

5

the terms of the Settlement Stipulation, then this Judgment and all orders entered in

6

connection herewith shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11

DATED: August 31, 2020

____________________________________
Hon. William H. Orrick
United States District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT