Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting Final Approval of Class Settlement 34 ; this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members; Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/5/10. (kaj)

- JM A Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. et al

Do c. 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O n March 18, 2010, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class settlement w a s granted by this Court based upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge A d le r. [Doc. No. 29.] Following preliminary approval, Notice of the proposed Settlement w a s provided in the manner described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Settlement Agreement. /// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

YVETTE SMITH, TIM DODSON, MOLLA ENGER, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC., also d/b/a KAISER PERMANENTE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, a California Corporation; and, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California Corporation, and Does 1 to 10,

Case No.: 08-cv-02353-LAB-JMA (Class Action) ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Defendants.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(S e e Christman Decl. at ¶3 [Doc. No. 32].) Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the S e ttle m e n t in accordance with the Order Re: Preliminary Approval. O n Monday, November 1, 2010, the Court held a hearing concerning the final a p p ro v a l of the settlement, as scheduled in its order of March 18, 2010. Due and adequate n o tice having been given to the Class as required in said order, there being no objections to th e Settlement by any class member, and the Court having considered all papers filed and p r o c e e d in g s conducted in this action and otherwise being fully informed and good cause a p p e a rin g therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: L e g a l Standard: 1. U n d e r Rule 23(e), the Court may approve a class settlement only upon finding

th a t it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To determine w h e th e r a proposed settlement meets these standards, the Court must evaluate a n u m b e r of factors, including: (1 ) the strength of the plaintiffs' case; (2 ) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3 ) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4 ) the amount offered in settlement; ( 5 ) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6 ) the experience and views of counsel; (7 ) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8 ) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. S ta to n v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). These factors are not e x c lu s iv e , and in some circumstances, one factor may deserve more weight than others or a lo n e may even prove to be determinative. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F .2 d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 5 2 3 , 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004). In addition, the settlement may not be the product of collusion 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a m o n g the negotiating parties. Ficalora v. Lockheed California Co., 751 F.2d 995, 997 (9th C ir. 1985); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). A n a l y s is : A t the hearing on November 1, the Court discussed all these factors and for reasons s ta te d at the hearing determined the proposed settlement was fair and appropriate, and s h o u ld be approved. 2. T h e parties have agreed to and the Court certifies the following classes

fo r the purpose of settlement: A ll individuals employed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and/or Kaiser F o u n d atio n Health Plan, Inc. as a Business Application Coordinator II and/or a S e n io r Business Application Coordinator for the time period December 18, 2 0 0 4 through July 16, 2009. A ll individuals employed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and/or Kaiser F o u n d a tio n Health Plan, Inc. as an Analyst or Senior Analyst on KP H e a lth C o n n e c t for the time period July 30, 2005 through August 1, 2009. 3. E x c lu d e d from the settlement are those persons who have submitted valid and

timely requests for exclusion. The following five (5) persons opted out from the Settlement a n d are excluded: (i) Freddie H. Roye, (ii) Michael C. Freidrich, (iii) Stephen R. Gregory, ( iv ) Jana K. Mundall, and (v) Josephine C. Malinao. Every person in the Settlement Class w h o did not opt out is a Settlement Class Member. 4. W ith respect to the Settlement Class Members, the Court finds and concludes

th a t : (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class M e m b e rs in the Action is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to th e Settlement Class Members that predominate over any individual questions; (c) the claims o f Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members; (d) Plaintiffs and C la ss Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the S e ttle m e n t Class Members; and (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for th e fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Report and Recommendation of M ag istrate Judge Jan Adler (the "R&R") previously found that these requirements were satisfied [Doc. No. 27], and the Court adopted these findings [Doc. No. 29]. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

T h is action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs and

a ll Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Class has released Kaiser Foundation H o s p ita ls and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, p red ec esso r or successor, and all agents, employees, officers, directors and attorneys thereof, f ro m any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses, a tto rn e y s' fees, damages, action or causes of action contingent or accrued for, or which relate to the factual allegations and claims asserted in the Lawsuit, including without limitation to, c la im s under the FLSA, the California Labor Code or Business & Professions Code (in c lu d in g section 17200), claims for restitution and other equitable relief, liquidated d am ag es, punitive damages, waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties, penalties of any nature w h a ts o e v e r, or any other benefit claimed on account of the allegations asserted in the L a w su it, in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Settlement Agreement. 6. T h e Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class Members

w a s the best notice practicable under the circumstances of these proceedings and of the m a tte rs set forth therein, and that the Notice fully satisfies the requirements of the Federal R u les of Civil Procedure, rule 23, due process and any other applicable laws. Magistrate A d ler previously found that "the content and method of notice is the best notice that is p ra c tic a b le under the circumstances". (R&R at page 18 [Doc. No. 27].)

I T IS SO ORDERED.

D A T E D : November 5, 2010

H ONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS U n ite d States District Judge

4