Martinez et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 450

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 444 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement and for an Order Directing Notice to the Class, Scheduling a Fairness Hearing, Amending the Class Certification Order, and Dismissing Certain Defendants (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10

LYDIA DOMINGUEZ, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
14
15
16
17
18
19

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

Case No.: C 09-02306 CW
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS,
AMENDING THE CLASS
CERTIFICATION ORDER, DISMISSING
DEFENDANTS BROWN AND CHIANG
AND SETTING A SCHEDULEAND
FAIRNESS HEARING
Date:
April 4, 2013
Time:
2:00 pm
Courtroom: 2

_

20
Plaintiffs PATSY MILLER, ALEX BROWN, by and through his mother and next friend
21
Lisa Brown, DONNA BROWN, CHLOE LIPTON, by and through her conservator and next
22
friend Julie Weissman-Steinbaugh, HERBERT M. MEYER, LESLIE GORDON, CHARLENE
23
AYERS, WILLER BEATRICE SHEPPARD, ANDY MARTINEZ, and CAROLYN STWEART
24
(collectively “Named Plaintiffs”) have filed, and all parties support, a Motion for Preliminary
25
Approval of Class Settlement Agreement, Directing Notice to the Class, Amending the Class
26
Certification Order, Dismissing Defendants Brown and Chiang, and Setting a Schedule and
27
28
1
[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. C 09-02306 CW

1

Fairness Hearing (hereinafter “Preliminary Approval Motion”). The Court has considered

2

Plaintiffs’ moving papers including the proposed Settlement Agreement, Proposed Notice to Class

3

Members, Proposed Notice Plan, and supporting declarations and exhibits, as well as the

4

arguments of counsel presented at a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion held on

5

Thursday, April 4, 2013. Classes and subclasses in this case have previously been certified under

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

7
8

Based on review of these papers, the arguments of counsel, and this Court’s familiarity
with the case, the Court hereby finds and concludes that:

9

1. The Settlement Agreement is the result of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations

10

between the parties, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential

11

treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of

12

possible settlement approval such that notice to the Class is appropriate.

13

2. The Proposed Class Notice allows class members a full and fair opportunity to consider

14

the proposed Settlement Agreement and it fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably

15

informs Class Members of the nature of this litigation, the identity of Class Counsel,

16

the essential terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s procedures for final

17

approval of the Settlement Agreement, class members’ right to comment or object if

18

they desire, and how to obtain additional information regarding this litigation and the

19

Settlement Agreement. The Proposed Class Notice thus satisfies the requirements of

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process.

21

3. The Proposed Notice Plan is a reasonable method to inform class members of the

22

Settlement and satisfies the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

23

as well as all other applicable legal and due process requirements.

24

4. After this Court certified the Plaintiff Class in this case, the counties of Los Angeles,

25

Madera, Mariposa, San Joaquin, and Yuba agreed to raise the wages of IHSS providers

26

above $9.50 per hour and so IHSS consumers in those counties are properly made

27

members of the Plaintiff Class. The redefined Class meets the requirements of Federal

28
2
[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. C 09-02306 CW

1

Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) for the reasons set forth in the Order

2

Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. #286).

3

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved, subject to notice to the Class and

5

final review and approval at the Fairness Hearing as provided for below.

6

2. The form of the Proposed Class Notice is approved.

7

3. The manner of distributing the Proposed Class Notice, as set forth in the Proposed

8
9
10
11
12
13

Notice Plan, is approved.
4. The parties shall provide class members with the Proposed Class Notice in the manner
specified in the Proposed Notice Plan.
5. The parties shall adhere to the following time schedule:
(a) Notice to the class shall be distributed and posted in the manner specified in the
Settlement Agreement no later than April 5, 2013.

14

(b) Class members may file objections under the procedures specified in the

15

Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Motion, so long as the

16

objections are postmarked or otherwise received by May 3, 2013. Class

17

Counsel will record the date of receipt of each objection or comment, and will

18

file all objections and comments with the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(c) By May 10, 2013, Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement and any party that elects to do so shall file a response to objections.
(d) The Court shall conduct a Fairness Hearing on May 23, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. for
the purpose of adjudging final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss Defendants Edmund G. Brown and John Chiang is
granted.
7. This Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. #286) is

26

hereby amended to modify the class definition for the First, Second, Third and Fourth

27

Claims for Relief as follows:

28
3
[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. C 09-02306 CW

1

All In-Home Supportive Services consumers residing in Alameda, Calaveras, Contra

2

Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa,

3

Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis

4

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Yolo

5

and Yuba counties.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED:

7
8
9

4
DATED: April __, 2013

______________________________________
The Honorable Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. C 09-02306 CW