Dunn v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America, A New York Entity et al
Filing
223
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 219 SETTLEMENT APPROVAL( terminated as moot 222 Administrative Motion) Motions due by 5/26/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KATHLEEN DUNN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
Case No. 13-cv-05456-HSG
ORDER GRANTING SETTLEMENT
APPROVAL
Re: Dkt. No. 219
10
TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
Pending before the Court is the joint motion for settlement approval filed by Plaintiffs
13
14
Kathleen Dunn, Patrick Campbell, Karen Hobson, and Frederick Hickson (“Plaintiffs”) and
15
Defendant Experis US, Inc. (“Experis”). Dkt. No. 219 (“Mot.”). The proposed settlement
16
agreements resolve Plaintiffs’ individual claims against Experis under the Fair Labor Standards
17
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), and California law.1
The Court will not recount the long procedural history or factual background of this action.
18
19
Instead, the Court refers any interested party to its orders denying Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for
20
settlement approval, see Dkt. No. 168, and granting Plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for
21
settlement approval, see Dkt. No. 193.2 The former order denied Plaintiffs’ motion for settlement
22
approval on two grounds. First, with respect to Plaintiffs’ individual FLSA claims, the Court
23
found that the scope of the proposed release language was grossly overbroad and improper. See
24
Dkt. No. 168 at 8. Second, the Court found that several aspects of the proposed settlement
25
1
26
27
28
The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7–1(b).
2
Those orders address Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Teachers Insurance & Annuity
Association of America (“TIAA”) and Pride Technologies, LLC (“Pride”). See Dkt. Nos. 168,
193. However, Experis withdrew from those settlements and only reached the present settlement
with Plaintiffs on February 17, 2017. See Dkt. No. 219-1 ¶ 6.
1
agreement and its posture gave rise to the concern that Plaintiffs were abandoning their class
2
claims under the FLSA and California law as a result of improper collusion between the parties, to
3
the potential prejudice of putative class members. See id. at 9. However, the latter order found
4
that Plaintiffs’ second renewed settlement agreements’ release language properly tracked the
5
factual and legal allegations set forth in the operative complaint, and that Plaintiffs adequately
6
resolved the Court’s concerns regarding the abandonment of their putative class claims. See Dkt.
7
No. 193 at 2.
Aside from each Plaintiff’s monetary award,3 the presently proposed settlement
9
agreements substantively mirror the terms of Plaintiffs’ second renewed settlement agreements,
10
which the Court approved. The Court therefore declines to engage in a protracted analysis of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
agreements that are the subject of this motion. Rather, having carefully reviewed the parties’
12
papers, and for the same reasons it approved Plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for settlement
13
approval, see Dkt. Nos. 168, 193, the Court finds the present settlements to be “fair and reasonable
14
resolution[s] of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions,” Lynn’s Food Stores Inc. v. United
15
States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982), and finds no potential prejudice to putative class
16
members or possibility of collusion, Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408
17
(9th Cir. 1989). The Court therefore GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval
18
and VACATES all pending deadlines. Plaintiffs are directed to submit any motion for attorneys’
19
fees and costs no later than May 26, 2017.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: 4/25/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
3
26
27
28
Under the terms of the present settlement agreements, Experis agrees to award Plaintiffs a total
settlement sum of $65,000, of which Plaintiff Dunn will receive $11,992.50, Plaintiff Campbell
will receive $15,515.50, Plaintiff Hickson will receive $29,009.50, and Plaintiff Hobson will
receive $8,482.50 before attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 219-1 ¶ 7.
4
The Court retains the authority to determine what fees are reasonable. See Avila v. Los Angeles
Police Dept., 758 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir 2014).
2
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?