Kairy et al v. Supershuttle International et al
Filing
404
ORDER GRANTING 397 MOTION for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 11/3/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2014)
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page1 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
ROOSEVELT KAIRY, LARRY BROWN,
WAYNE DICKSON, DRAKE OSMUN,
HARJINDER SINGHDIETZ,
FREDERICK FERNANDEZ, YURIK
ZADOV, and MUNIR AHMED on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case No. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
REVISED
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE
ACTION SETTLEMENT
v.
SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and SUPERSHUTTLE FRANCHISE
CORPORATION, d.b.a.
SUPERSHUTTLE; CLOUD 9 SHUTTLE,
INC.; SUPERSHUTTLE OF SAN
FRANCISCO, INC.; MINI-BUS
SYSTEMS, INC.; SUPERSHUTTLE LOS
ANGELES, INC.; AND SACRAMENTO
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
041022/2007-1080.080
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page2 of 13
1
INTRODUCTION
2
On October 31, 2014, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class
3
and Collective Action Settlement, at which all named parties were represented. Due and adequate
4
notice having been given to the Class Members, and the Court having considered the Settlement
5
Agreement, all papers and proceedings had herein, and all oral and written comments received
6
regarding the proposed Settlement, and having reviewed the records in this case, and good cause
7
appearing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:
8
DEFINITIONS
9
1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions contained in the Class Action
10
Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Agreement”) attached as Exhibit 1 to the
11
Declaration of Aaron Kaufmann in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
12
Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF# 383-1), and all terms used in this Order shall
13
have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement.
14
JURISDICTION
15
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Lawsuit and all matters relating
16
thereto, and over all parties to the Lawsuit.
17
CONFIRMATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES
18
3. The Court confirms as final its preliminary certification in the June 12, 2014 Order of the
19
Settlement Class, as that term is defined in and by the terms of the Agreement. With
20
respect to the Settlement Class and for purposes of approving this Settlement only, this
21
Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Members of the Settlement Class are ascertainable
22
and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of
23
law or fact common to the Settlement Class, and there is a well-defined community of
24
interest among Members of the Settlement Class with respect to the subject matter of the
25
Lawsuit; (c) the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the other
26
members of the Settlement Class; (d) the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately
27
protected the interests of the Settlement Class; (e) a class action is superior to other
28
available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) the counsel of
-1REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
041022/2007-1080.080
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page3 of 13
1
record for the Class Representatives, i.e., Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as class
2
counsel.
3
4. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Roosevelt Kairy, Larry Brown, Wayne
4
Dickson, Drake Osmun, Harjinder Dubb, Frederick Fernandez, Yurik Zadov, and Munir
5
Ahmed as class representatives.
6
5. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiffs’ law firms, Leonard Carder,
7
LLP; Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP; Lewis Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.;
8
and Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel.
9
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
10
6. The Court finds that the distribution of Class Notice Packages as provided for in the June
11
12, 2014 Order granting preliminary approval constituted the best notice practicable under
12
the circumstances to all persons within the definitions of the Settlement Class, and fully
13
met the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution and California
14
law with respect to those Settlement Class Members to whom Notice was mailed. Based
15
on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with the Settlement, the actual
16
notices to Settlement Class Members were adequate, except as expressly stated herein.
17
7. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), this Court grants final approval to the Agreement and
18
the Settlement set forth therein, and orders the parties to implement, and comply with, its
19
terms. The Court finds that the Agreement and the Settlement set forth therein is fair,
20
reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and that it is binding on all members of the
21
Settlement Class, except as set forth in Paragraphs 13-16 below. The Court specifically
22
finds that this Settlement affords substantial monetary and non-monetary relief to the
23
Class, and is rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims given the risk, expense,
24
complexity, and duration of further litigation. This Court also finds that the Agreement is
25
the result of arms’-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the
26
interests of the Class and Defendants, after thorough factual and legal investigation. The
27
Court further finds that the response of the Classes to the Settlement supports final
28
approval, in that only one class member has objected to the proposed Settlement and only
-2REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page4 of 13
1
twelve out of more than 3,000 Class Members have excluded themselves from the
2
Settlement.
3
8. The Court finds that the negotiated operational changes detailed in Exhibit A to the
4
Agreement have significant value to certain class members (franchisees and associate
5
drivers still operating shuttle vans franchised through defendant City Licensees), and that
6
these changes further enhance the independence of the operators, provide further
7
entrepreneurial opportunities, and provide certain clarifications that strengthen the
8
independent contractor status of these class members on a going-forward basis.
9
9. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is rationally related to the relative
10
strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and
11
procedures set forth in the Agreement by which payments are to be calculated and made to
12
Class Members are fair, reasonable, and adequate. Payment shall be made according to
13
those allocations and pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Agreement and this Order.
14
10. Plaintiffs have requested approval of a payment from the aggregate settlement fund of
15
$7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) in
16
settlement of the California Class’ PAGA claims. The Court finds that this LWDA
17
payment is fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves a payment to the LWDA in the
18
amount of $7,500.
19
11. Plaintiffs have requested appointment of the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center
20
(San Francisco, CA) as cy pres beneficiary. Because the Legal Aid Society-Employment
21
Law Center meets the test under Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2013)
22
that “there be a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries,”
23
the Court hereby designates the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center as cy pres
24
beneficiary for receipt of undistributed funds as provided under the Agreement and this
25
Order.
26
12. By operation of this Order and upon the effective date of the Judgment, the Class
27
Representatives shall release, relinquish, and discharge all claims against the Releasees
28
released under the terms of Paragraph 65 Settlement Agreement.
-3REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page5 of 13
1
13. By operation of this Order and upon the effective date of the Judgment, all Settlement
2
Class Members who have not opted out of the Settlement shall be deemed to have, and by
3
operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
4
discharged all Released Claims against the Releasees as set forth in Paragraph 63 of the
5
Settlement Agreement, except as set forth in Paragraph 16 below.
6
14. From the Net Settlement Fund KCC shall create a reserve fund equal to the value of the
7
claims of the 130 Class Members who have not been mailed Notice (“No Address Class
8
Members”) and the 136 Class Members who were mailed Notice but whose Notice was
9
returned as undeliverable (“Bad Address Class members”) (collectively “Undelivered
10
Notice Class Members”). A list of these 266 Class Members is attached as Exhibit A to
11
this Order. The value of this reserve fund will be held back from the Settlement, in the
12
Qualified Settlement Fund by KCC, and available to pay any of these 266 Class Members
13
whose address information is obtained within12 months of the final approval order.
14
15. Efforts to locate address information for the 130 No Address Class Members will
15
continue. These efforts will include attempted communication with primary operators
16
who may have contact information for secondary operators.
17
16. As any of the 266 Undelivered Notice Class Members are located or come forward, KCC
18
will mail them Notice and provide them with an opportunity to exclude themselves from
19
the Settlement. Those who are mailed Notice and do not exclude themselves from the
20
Settlement will receive their share of the Settlement and be bound by the Release.
21
17. On October 31, 2015, any of the 266 Undelivered Notice Class Members who have still
22
not been mailed Notice will be excluded from the Settlement and shall not be bound by
23
the Release. The dollars attributable to their shares of settlement will be disbursed to the
24
cy pres beneficiary.
25
18. The Lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
26
19. The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Lawsuit for the
27
purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, administration
28
and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment.
-4REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page6 of 13
1
2
20. This document shall constitute a judgment (and separate document constituting said
judgment) for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
3
21. The Court finds that notice of the Settlement was served upon all appropriate Federal and
4
State officials on July 18, 2014 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
5
(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
Dated: November 3, 2014
HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Court Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
CASE NO. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page7 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page8 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page9 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page10 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page11 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page12 of 13
Case4:08-cv-02993-JSW Document402 Filed10/31/14 Page13 of 13
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?