Bush v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC et al
Filing
149
ORDER GRANTING 143 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2022)
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
Thomas Segal (SBN 222791)
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHRISTIANA BUSH
(additional counsel listed on next page)
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CHRISTIANA BUSH, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VACO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Tennessee limited liability company; VACO
SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; VACO LAJOLLA, LLC, a
Tennessee limited liability company; VACO
ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, a California
limited liability company; VACO LOS
ANGELES, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability
company; GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
No. 5:17-cv-05605-BLF
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS AND
COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Dept.:
April 21, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
Courtroom 3
280 South First Street, 4th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Action Filed:
August 24, 2017
Date of Removal:
September 27, 2017
5th Am. Complaint: February 22, 2021
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Daniel B. Chammas (SBN 204825)
Min K. Kim (SBN 305884)
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
dchammas@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
Attorneys for Defendant
VACO LLC
Zachary P. Hutton (SBN 234737)
Paul A. Holton (SBN 313047)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
zachhutton@paulhastings.com
paulholton@paulhastings.com
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE LLC
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 7
1
On April 21, 2022, a hearing was held on the joint motion of plaintiff Christiana Bush
2
(“Plaintiff”) and defendants Vaco LLC (“Vaco”) and Google LLC (“Google”) (Vaco and Google
3
are, collectively, “Defendants”) for final approval of their class and collective action settlement
4
(the “Settlement”).
5
The parties have submitted their Settlement, which this Court preliminarily approved by
6
its September 9, 2021 order (Dkt. 133) (“Preliminary Approval Order”). In accordance with the
7
Preliminary Approval Order, Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement
8
and the opportunity to comment on or object to it, to exclude themselves from its provisions, or to
9
opt into the Settlement.
10
Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the parties,
11
and the evidence and argument received by the Court at the hearing before it entered the
12
Preliminary Approval Order and the final approval hearing on April 21, 2022, the Court grants
13
final approval of the Settlement, and HEREBY ORDERS and MAKES DETERMINATIONS as
14
follows:
15
16
1.
The following persons are hereby certified as class members for the purpose of
entering a settlement in this matter:
17
I.
The California Class: All persons employed by Vaco in California who were
18
assigned to work at Google in any of the roles of Order Audit Operation
19
Specialist, Content Bug Technician, Expedition Associate, and/or Expedition
20
Team Lead, at any time from August 12, 2013 through September 9, 2021.
21
II.
The Expedition FLSA Class: All persons employed by Vaco in the United
22
States, but outside of California, who were assigned to work at Google in the
23
position of Expedition Associate and/or Expedition Team Lead at any time
24
from August 12, 2014 through September 9, 2021.
25
2.
The Court certifies the California Class solely for purposes of Settlement pursuant
26
to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifies the Expedition FLSA Class as a
27
collective action solely for purposes of Settlement, pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
28
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
-3[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
3.
The Court designates Plaintiff Christiana Bush as Class Representative, and
designates Shaun Setareh and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel.
4.
Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq. (“CAFA”), not
4
later than ten days after the Parties’ joint motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement
5
was filed in court, Defendants served upon the Attorney General of the United States and the
6
appropriate state official of each state in which a Class Member resides a notice of the Settlement
7
consisting of: a copy of the pleadings in this action; a notice of the scheduled judicial hearings in
8
this action; copies of the Settlement and Class Notice Packets; and the names of Class Members
9
who reside in each state and the estimated proportionate share of the Class Members in each state
10
compared to the entire Settlement. The notice of Settlement also invited comment on the
11
Settlement. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have discharged their obligations under
12
CAFA to provide notice to the appropriate federal and state officials.
13
5.
Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, a Notice of Proposed Settlement and
14
Final Approval Hearing, and Notice of Estimated Settlement Award were sent to each Class
15
Member by first-class mail. These papers informed Class Members of the terms of the Settlement,
16
their respective right to receive a Settlement Share, their right to comment on or object to the
17
Settlement, to opt into the Settlement, or to opt out of the Settlement and pursue their own
18
remedies, and their right to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing and be
19
heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods of time were provided by each of
20
these procedures. No Class Members objected to the Settlement as part of this notice process or
21
stated an intent to appear at the final approval hearing.
22
6.
The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate
23
protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision
24
regarding approval of the Settlement based on the responses of Class Members. The Court finds
25
and determines that the notice provided in this case was the best notice practicable, which satisfied
26
the requirements of law and due process.
27
28
7.
For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds and
determines that the proposed classes meet all of the legal requirements for class and collective
-4[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 7
1
action certification, and it is hereby ordered that the California Class is certified solely for purposes
2
of the Settlement pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Expedition FLSA
3
Class is certified as a collective action solely for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to section
4
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
5
8.
No objections were raised by any Class Members.
6
9.
The Court further finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair,
7
reasonable, and adequate to the Classes and to each Class Member, that the California Class
8
Members who have not opted out will be bound by the Settlement, that the Settlement is ordered
9
finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby are
10
11
ordered to be consummated.
10.
The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be paid to the
12
Participating Class Members (California Class Members who did not timely submit an Exclusion
13
Letter, and Expedition FLSA Class Members who timely submitted a valid Consent to Join
14
Settlement form), as provided for by the Settlement, are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby
15
gives final approval to and orders the payment of those amounts to be made to the Participating
16
Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.
17
11.
The Court finds and determines that the fees and expenses of Phoenix Settlement
18
Administrators in administrating the settlement, in the amount of $7,250, are fair and reasonable.
19
The Court hereby gives final approval to and orders that the payment of approximately that amount
20
be paid out of the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.
21
12.
In addition to any recovery that Plaintiff may receive from the Net Settlement
22
Amount, and in recognition of the Plaintiff’s efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court
23
hereby approves the payment of an incentive award to Plaintiff in the amount of $7,500. This
24
shall be paid from the Total Settlement Amount.
25
13.
Pursuant to the authorities and argument presented to the Court, the Court approves
26
the payment of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel in the sum of $420,000, plus costs and expenses
27
in the amount of $15,941.94. This shall be paid from the Total Settlement Amount.
28
-5[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 7
1
14.
Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction
2
of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and
3
enforcement of this order and the Settlement.
4
5
6
15.
Upon completion of administration of the settlement, the Settlement Administrator
will provide written certification of such completion to the Court and counsel for the parties.
16.
The Court finds that in consideration of Plaintiff’s awarded Class Representative
7
Payment, Plaintiff’s Settlement Share, and the other terms and conditions of the Settlement, as of
8
the date the Settlement becomes Final, except as provided below, Plaintiff releases any and all
9
known and unknown claims against Vaco and Google and any of their present and former parents,
10
subsidiaries and affiliated companies or entities, and their respective officers, directors,
11
employees, partners, members, shareholders and agents, and any other successors, assigns and
12
legal representatives and their related persons and entities (collectively, “Released Parties”), and
13
waives the protection of California Civil Code section 1542.
14
17.
The Court finds that in consideration for their awarded Settlement Shares, as of the
15
date the Settlement becomes Final, all California Class Members (other than those Class Members
16
who timely and validly elected not to participate in the Settlement) release any and all known and
17
unknown claims against Vaco, Google and the Released Parties based on the facts alleged in the
18
operative complaint, including that from August 12, 2013 through the date on which the Court
19
grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, Defendants failed to provide meal periods; provide
20
rest periods; pay hourly wages; pay overtime compensation; indemnify employees for business
21
expenses; provide accurate itemized wage statements; and pay all wages due to discharged and
22
quitting employees. The released claims include but are not limited to claims brought under
23
California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1197,
24
1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208, and the
25
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Such claims include claims for wages, statutory
26
penalties, civil penalties, or other relief under the California Labor Code and any other related
27
state or municipal law, relief from unfair competition under California Business and Professions
28
Code section 17200 et seq.; attorneys’ fees and costs; and interest, and waives the protection of
-6[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 149 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 7
1
California Civil Code section 1542 with respect to such claims (the “California Class Members’
2
Released Claims”).
3
18.
The Court finds that in consideration for their awarded Settlement Shares, as of the
4
date the Settlement becomes Final, employees who are Expedition FLSA Class Members who
5
timely submitted consent forms to join the Settlement release any and all known and unknown
6
claims against Vaco, Google and the Released Parties that arise out of the allegations that, from
7
August 12, 2014 through the date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of the
8
Settlement, defendants failed to pay for all hours worked; failed to pay overtime wages; and failed
9
to keep accurate records of all hours worked. The released claims include but are not limited to
10
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and any similar
11
federal, state, municipal or local laws. Such claims include claims for wages, statutory or civil
12
penalties, liquidated damages, interest, other relief, and claims for attorneys’ fees and costs (the
13
“Expedition FLSA Class Members’ Released Claims”).
14
19.
The parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement.
15
20.
The parties shall bear his, her, its or their own respective attorneys’ fees and costs
16
except as otherwise provided in the Settlement and in this Order.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 26
Dated: __________________, 2022
________________________________
The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman
District Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
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?