Crane v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/17/2018. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

JASON CRANE,

15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

17
18

JELD-WEN, INC.,
Defendant.

19

Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG
CLASS ACTION
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

20
21

Pending before the Court in this putative class action alleging, among other

22

claims, violations of California Labor Code provisions regarding wages and hours,

23

is Plaintiff's motion to preliminarily approval of class action settlement. The

24

motion is denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

25

1.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class action for purposes of

26

settlement. Although the fact of settlement is relevant to the class certification

27

analysis, certification must nonetheless meet Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements,

28

with not lesser but heightened attention:

Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG

1

Confronted with a request for settlement-only class certification, a
district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present
intractable management problems, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
23(b)(3)(D), for the proposal is that there be no trial. But other
specifications of the Rule -- those designed to protect absentees by
blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions -- demand
undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context. Such
attention is of vital importance, for a court asked to certify a
settlement class will lack the opportunity, present when a case is
litigated, to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they
unfold.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (citation and footnote
omitted, emphasis added); see also id. at 620-27.

11

Plaintiff provided insufficient information to support findings of

12

commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) and that questions of law or fact common to the

13

class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class

14

members, as required by Rule 23(b)(3). For example, Plaintiff concedes that

15

Defendant's written policies complied with the law, and that inquiry into violations

16

would be individualized rather than class-wide. (See doc. no. 31-1 (Pl's Mem. of

17

P.&A.) at 22-23.1)

18

2.

Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of settlement pursuant to Rule

19

23(e); however, he provided insufficient information to consider the settlement in

20

light of the factors outlined in Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959-60 (9th Cir.

21

2003).

22

First, it is unclear why the claim for failure to pay all wages upon

23

termination, which is alleged in the first amended complaint and covered by the

24

release in the settlement agreement, is not included in a sub-class of employees

25

terminated during the class period. It is also unclear why there is no provision for

26

such employees to be compensated from the settlement for this violation. Based

27

on the information provided in Plaintiff's motion, the Court cannot conclude that

28
1

Page numbers are assigned by the Court's ECF system.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG

1

under the proposed settlement the class members would be treated fairly relative to

2

each other, as the proposed class lumps all members in one class.

3

Second, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to evaluate the

4

fairness and adequacy of the settlement. If Plaintiff renews this motion, he must

5

state the range of possible recovery and average recovery per class member,

6

assuming that all class members make a claim against the proposed settlement

7

fund.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

3.

Insufficient information is provided to support appointment of

Phoenix Settlement Administrators.
4.

It is unclear whether there was timely compliance with California

Labor Code § 2699(l)(2).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to re-filing after
curing the foregoing defects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: September 17, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG

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

1
Order re Joint Stipulation to File Plaintiff’s FAC

Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG