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-
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?