Lu et al v. Pacific Rim Enterprises et al

Filing 49

ORDER requesting additional briefing. Signed by Judge Whyte on 10/31/2011. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4

E-FILED on 10/31/2011

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

CHANG MIN LU and LI FEN LEE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,

No. 09-cv-06058 RMW

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING REGARDING SETTLEMENT

15
16
17

PACIFIC RIM ENTERPRISES, FANNY
KING, and JIM SIEVERS,
Defendants.

18
19

A stipulation for approval of a proposed settlement was heard by this court on October 28,

20

2011. At the hearing, the court discussed whether the proposed settlement could properly be filed

21

under seal. After the parties indicated that they would withdraw the request to file the proposed

22

settlement under seal, the court preliminarily indicated that it would approve the proposed

23

settlement. However, the court has since examined the proposed settlement agreement more closely

24

and has an additional concern. Plaintiff Chang Min Lu purports to release any and all claims arising

25

under PAGA on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, although the proposed settlement

26

agreement does not purport to prevent any employee who is not a party to the complaint from

27

bringing valid individual claims under other provisions of the Labor Code for wages and any

28

statutory claims. Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the settlement of a
ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REGARDING SETTLEMENT
MEC

— No. 09-cv-06058 RMW

1

class action be approved by the court, and only after the court has directed notice to all class

2

members bound by the proposed settlement and held a hearing to determined whether the proposal is

3

fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class. The court will require the parties to submit additional

4

briefing demonstrating that the court need not apply Rule 23(e) to the settlement of PAGA claims on

5

behalf of a class. Approval of the stipulated settlement is denied pending additional briefing.

6
7
DATED:
8

October 31, 2011
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REGARDING SETTLEMENT
MEC
2

— No. 09-cv-06058 RMW