Mata et al v. Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula et al
Filing
179
Order Regarding Preliminary Approval Hearing. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 09/01/2016. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JUVENTINA MATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
18
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL HEARING
v.
MANPOWER INC. / CALIFORNIA
PENINSULA, et al.,
Defendants.
The Court orders the parties to file, by September 6, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., a response to the
following questions. The parties’ response may not exceed eight pages in length.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCOPE OF RELEASE AND NOTICE
1. This is not the only case where California residents have asserted wage and hour claims
against a Manpower entity. The Court’s March 15, 2016 order on Defendants’ motion to
strike highlighted the interplay between this case and four other cases that have been filed
in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 155. The parties’ November 10, 2015
case management statement also mentioned two other cases which may be related to the
instant case. ECF No. 116. The motion for preliminary approval mentions two more
possibly related cases. ECF No. 176-1 at 15.
Does the Settlement Agreement’s release, which applies to “any and all related
claims” asserted in the instant case against Defendants and “any parent, subsidiary,
affiliate, predecessor or successor, and all agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers,
and attorneys thereof,” jeopardize the ability of plaintiffs in these other cases to obtain
relief? ECF No. 176 at 34.
In answering this question, the parties must address what impact, if any, the
1
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Agreement’s release has upon the following cases:
o Willner v. Manpower Inc. (“Willner I”), No. 11-CV-2846-JST (N.D. Cal.)
o Padilla v. Willner (“Willner II”), No. 15-CV-4866-JST (N.D. Cal.)
o Ramirez v. Manpower Inc. (“Ramirez I”), No. 13-CV-2880-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
o Ramirez v. Manpower CP (“Ramirez II”), No. 13-CV-3238-EJD (N.D. Cal.)
o Stimpson v. Manpower US Inc., No. 13-CV-0829-GPC (S.D. Cal.)
o Sanchez v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 132626 (Monterey Cty. Sup. Ct.)
o Rico v. Manpower, Inc. / CP, No. 125340 (Monterey Cty. Sup. Ct.)
o Martinez v. Harmony Foods Corp., No. 177053 (Santa Cruz Cty. Sup. Ct.)
2. In addition, the parties are to explain why none of the above cases are mentioned in the
proposed notice. Notably, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly argued—and continues to
contend—that the instant case is related to the Willner cases and that there is some
“overlap” between the Willner cases and the instant case. ECF No. 176-2 at 5. Indeed,
Plaintiffs’ counsel has even appealed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar’s judgment in Willner
II. The appeal remains pending. However, neither of the Willner cases is mentioned in
the proposed notice.
OPT OUT AND OBJECTION PROCEDURE
1. The parties’ proposed preliminary approval order states that all objections shall be mailed
to the Settlement Administrator. ECF No. 176-4 at 7. However, the proposed notice
states that all objections must be mailed to the Court. ECF No. 176 at 44. The parties are
to clarify this discrepancy.
2. The parties have included a proposed opt-out form with their proposed notice. However,
the parties have not included a corresponding objection form. Why have the parties not
done so?
ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES
1. Plaintiffs’ counsel must provide their estimated lodestar. This estimate must include (1)
the total number of hours spent on this litigation, (2) how many additional hours will be
spent through final approval, and (3) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reported billable rate.
For each attorney who worked on this action, Plaintiffs’ counsel must specify
whether any court within the Northern District of California has approved the attorney at
their reported billable rate.
The estimated lodestar may not include any hours spent by Plaintiffs’ counsel
litigating, objecting, or attempting to relate the instant case to Ramirez I, Ramirez II,
Willner I, or Willner II.
2. The parties are to specify how they arrived at the $200,000 estimate for the Settlement
Administrator and whether any competitive bidding was undertaken.
The parties’ $200,000 estimate appears high. In a similar wage and hour case also
involving thousands of Class Members, Chavez v. PVH Corporation, 13-CV-1797 (N.D.
Cal.), the parties spent $111,073.11 on the settlement administrator. ECF No. 209 at 15.
The settlement administrator in Chavez had to send out multiple rounds of notices because
the Court rejected both preliminary and final approval in Chavez. It is unclear why the
parties here need to spend nearly twice the amount on a Settlement Administrator that was
2
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING
1
2
3
4
5
6
spent in Chavez.
3. The parties must state why the representative Plaintiffs should receive $7,500 each in
service awards. The Ninth Circuit has established $5,000 as a reasonable benchmark
award for representative plaintiffs. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779
F.3d 934, 947–48 (9th Cir. 2015); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463
(9th Cir. 2000). It is unclear why departure from this benchmark is appropriate in the
instant case. As a point of comparison, the Court recently approved a class action
settlement in In re Yahoo Mail Litigation, 13-CV-4980 (N.D. Cal.), where the four class
representatives, who were involved in a complex, multi-year litigation, received $5,000
each. ECF No. 203 at 21.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
CY PRES
1. In Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit
determined that, in a class action settlement, a cy pres distribution should “(1) address the
objectives of the underlying statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, [and] (3) provide
reasonable certainty that any member will be benefitted.”
The parties are to address how their proposed cy pres recipient—the
Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Workplaces—satisfies these three guiding standards.
In particular, it is unclear how the Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Workplaces, whose
mission is “to achieve worker health and psychological well-being,” is in any way related
to the claims asserted here—that Defendants did not pay for work which Class Members
performed.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: September 1, 2016.
17
18
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING
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?