Burden v. Selectquote Insurance Services

Filing 98

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING re 92 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Charles Burden. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/6/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9

CHARLES BURDEN, individually and on

Case No: C 10-05966 SBA

10 behalf of other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

ORDER FOR FURTHER
BRIEFING RE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

13 SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES,

a California corporation; and DOES 1 through

Dkt. 92

14 10,
15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Charles Burden (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant class action against his

18

former employer, Defendant SelectQuote Insurance Services, alleging, inter alia, that he

19

was erroneously classified as exempt from state and federal wage and hour laws.

20

Following several settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu of this

21

Court, the parties reached a settlement of the instant dispute. In accordance with the

22

settlement, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Subclass

23

and Dismissal of Class Allegations. Dkt. 92.

24

The proposed Settlement Class is comprised of: (1) a California Insurance Agent

25

Class defined as “all persons who, at any time between February 9, 2006 and March 31,

26

2012, were employed by Defendant as an Account Manager (also called ‘insurance agent’)

27

in State of California”; (2) the Nationwide Insurance Agent Class, defined as “all persons

28

who, at any time between February 9, 2006 and March 31, 2012, were employed by

1

Defendant as an Account Manager in the United States”; and (3) the Former Insurance

2

Agent Class defined as “all persons employed by Defendant as an Account Manager in the

3

State of California and whose employment with Defendant ended at any time between

4

February 9, 2007 and October 9, 2012.” See Class Action Settlement and Release at 10:8-

5

16, Dkt. 96.

6

Under the terms of the settlement, Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of

7

$750,000 on a non-reversionary basis. Id. at 6:21-28. Following final court approval of the

8

settlement, Defendant is to pay the Gross Settlement Amount to the Settlement

9

Administrator, who will, in turn, distribute net settlement payments to Class Members. Id.

10

at 11:11-14. Any unclaimed funds are to be paid to the Legal Aid Society–Employment

11

Law Center as a cy pres award. Id. at 24:12-14.

12

As part of the claims administration process, the Settlement Administrator will mail

13

a Claim Form to each of the Class Members based on the detailed employee information

14

that will be provided by Defendant. Id. at 13:14-14:2. In order to receive a settlement

15

payment, the Class Member must submit a Claim Form. Id. at 15:23-26, 16:13-15.

16

Irrespective of whether a Class Member timely submits a Claim Form, however, all Class

17

Members who do not affirmatively opt out will be bound by the settlement, including its

18

general release of all wage and hour claims against Defendant. Id. at 18:18-21, 27:15-23.

19

The rationale underlying the requirement that a Class Member submit a Claim Form

20

in order to receive a payment under the settlement is not apparent from Plaintiff’s motion

21

papers. The settlement agreement requires Defendant to provide sufficient information to

22

the Settlement Administrator from which it can ascertain the identity and location of the

23

Class Member, as well as calculate the Class Member’s pro rata share of the settlement.

24

Thus, it appears, at least facially, that direct payments could be made to Class Members.

25

While it is not the role of the Court to “delete, substitute or modify” provisions of the

26

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

27

obligated “to protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements

28
-2-

1

affecting their rights,” In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir.2008)

2

(citation omitted). Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4

1.

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum which provides an

5

explanation of why Class Members are being required to submit a Claims Form as a

6

prerequisite to receiving a payment under the settlement, and why direct payments are not

7

being made to Class Members. Plaintiff shall file his supplemental memorandum by no

8

later than February 12, 2013.

9

2.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court will take Plaintiff’s Motion for

10

Preliminary Approval of Settlement Subclass and Dismissal of Class Allegations under

11

submission, without oral argument, as of the date Plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum is

12

due.

13

3.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

The motion hearing scheduled for February 12, 2013 is VACATED.

Dated: February 6, 2013

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-