Lusby v. Gamestop, Inc et al

Filing 42

SECOND INTERIM ORDER re 33 AMENDED MOTION for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/20/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2014)

1

*E-Filed: May 20, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

THOMAS LUSBY, ET AL., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiffs,
13

v.

14

SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

GAMESTOP INC., ET AL.,

15

No. C12-03783 HRL

Defendants.

[Re: Docket No. 33]
16
17

____________________________________/
Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, sue Gamestop for various alleged wage and hour

18

violations. At the preliminary approval hearing, the Court expressed several concerns, most of

19

which were sufficiently addressed in a supplemental declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which also

20

included an updated settlement agreement. See Dkt. No. 36. However, the Court had some

21

lingering issues with respect to the formula for allocating settlement payments among the

22

subclasses. In an interim order, the Court asked the parties to further explain why the average

23

hourly rate was a reasonable proxy of differences in hourly rates, hours worked, and claims among

24

the subclasses, and to consider incorporating the subclasses’ average hours per week into the

25

calculation. See Dkt. No. 40 (“Interim Order”). The Court also requested the following estimates:

26

(1) payouts based on 30% participation; (2) payouts based on 100% participation; (3) potential

27

recovery if the class prevailed on every claim raised in the complaint; and (4) Gamestop’s share of

28

payroll taxes. Id.

1

In response to the Interim Order, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted another supplemental

2

declaration in which she provided the requested estimates and expressed the parties’ intent to adopt

3

the Court’s suggestion to include average hours worked in the allocation formula. See Dkt. No. 41.

4

In view of these anticipated changes, as well as those already made since the filing of the motion,

5

the Court invites a new motion for preliminary approval.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C12-03783 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Carrie Anne Gonell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

John David Hayashi

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4

Molly Ann DeSario [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8

Scott Edward Cole [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3