Ali et al v. Menzies Aviation, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik Lifting Stay, granting Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Class Certification, and Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement; Final Approval Hearing set for 1/5/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AD) Modified on 9/6/2016 to add complete title of order (AD).

HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

OMAR ALI, an individual, and KHALID
9 MOHAMED, an individual, and MOHAMUD
JAMA, an individual,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
13 MENZIES AVIATION, INC. , a foreign
business entity, and JOHN MENZIES PLC, a
14 foreign limited liability company,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00262RSL
ORDER LIFTING STAY,
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION, AND
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

16
17
18

Before the Court is the parties “Stipulated Motion to Lift Stay and for Certification of
Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement” (Dkt. # 13) and the

19
“Stipulated Amendment to Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement” (Dkt. # 16). The Court
20
21

has considered Stipulated Motion, together with the supporting declarations and exhibits and the

22 remainder of the record.
23
24

I.

MOTION TO LIFT STAY.

The motion to lift the stay in place in this case is GRANTED.

25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 1

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

II.

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION.

1
2

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED.

3

The Court makes the following Findings with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion:

4

A.

5

Standard of Review
A party seeking to certify a class must establish that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

6
7
8

23 are met. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). A court must engage in a
“rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied.

9 Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). However, the evidentiary
10 showing need not be extensive. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F. 2d 891, 901 (9th Cir. 1975).
11 B.
12

Plaintiffs have satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
To be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs and the proposed Class must first

13
satisfy all the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a):
14
15
16
17

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on
behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

18
19
20

1. Numerosity.
The Class’s size is sufficiently numerous to meet the requirement of numerosity. There

21 are, at least, hundreds of class members in the class. As a general rule a potential class of 40
22 members is considered impractical to join. Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553
23
24

(11th Cir.1986). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that the proposed
Classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.

25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 2

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

2. Commonality
1
2

A class meets the commonality requirement when “the common questions it has raised

3 are ‘apt to drive the resolution of the litigation’ no matter their number. Jiminez v. Allstate Ins.
4 Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant engaged
5 in a common course of conduct by failing to pay the minimum wage mandated by City of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.
The Class’s common questions include:
o Whether the Defendants had a duty to pay its non-managerial employees the
minimum hourly wages provided within the Ordinance.
o Whether the Defendants wrongfully withheld the minimum hourly wages
provided within the Ordinance.
o Whether the Defendants’ failure to pay its employees the minimum hourly wages
provided within the Ordinance constituted a statutory violation.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

o Whether the Defendants were unjustly enriched by withholding the minimum
hourly wages provided within the Ordinance.
o Whether Defendants have a contractual defense or immunity from suit in this
venue.
o Whether the Defendants’ injured employees are entitled to receive punitive or
double damages as result of The Defendants willful withholding of the minimum
hourly wages provided within the Ordinance.
These common questions of fact and law are sufficient to satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

20
21
22
23

commonality requirement.
3. Typicality
The proposed Class Representatives’ claims are typical of the Class because Plaintiffs’

24 claims arise from the same alleged course of conduct and are based on the same legal theories
25 regarding Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct. Each Class member has claims based on the
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 3

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

same legal theories as the Plaintiffs, i.e., alleged failure to pay the prevailing minimum wage.
1
2

Typicality has been interpreted to mean that “a class representative must be part of the class and

3 ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” Falcon, 457 U.S. at
4 156 (quoting East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc., v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977).
5 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the typicality requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
6
7

4. Adequacy
The proposed Class Representatives and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect

8
9
10

the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no antagonistic or conflicting interests with absent Class
members and Class counsel are experienced in employment litigation and class action practice.

11

5. The Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Are Met.

12

This dispute for every member of the proposed Class revolves around questions common

13 to the Class, listed above. Answering those common questions will determine the liability of
14

Defendants to every member of the proposed Class. Accordingly, common questions

15
predominate over individual questions and answering these questions in a single forum “would
16
17

achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons

18 similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable
19 results.” 1966 Advisory Committee Notes, Rule 23(b)(3). In addition, a class action is superior to
20 other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P.
21 23(b)(3) recites that a court should consider: (A) the interest of members of the class in
22

individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature

23
of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the
24
25

class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the

26 particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 4

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

action. All of these factors favor certification here. Hundreds of Class members bringing
1
2

individual claims would not conserve time, effort and expense or provide a forum for claimants

3 like those here. Absent Class members are unlikely to have any interest in individually
4 controlling their claims, and the claims of former employees might go unaddressed but for their
5 inclusion in a class action. Defendants have substantial contacts in Washington state and all of
6
7

the class members live (or have lived) here; therefore this jurisdiction has a particular interest in
this matter, making this a desirable location to litigate these claims.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT is, accordingly, hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. This action shall be maintained as a Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and
on behalf of the following Class:
All employees of the Defendants who are alleged to have been either
Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or
more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period
from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016, and who were paid less than
the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance
7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015
and 2016.

16
17
18

2. Plaintiffs Omar Ali, Khalid Mohamed, and Mohamud Jama are appointed Class
Representatives.

19

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel are hereby appointed and designated as counsel for the above-

20

mentioned Class and are authorized to act on behalf of the members of the Class.

21
22

4. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as Claims Administrator.
III. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVEL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT.

23
24
25

This Court has reviewed the Parties’ Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), as well as the
files, records and proceedings to date in this matter. For purposes of this Order, capitalized terms

26 used below shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Stipulated Motion for Approval of
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 5

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

Class Action Settlement, unless otherwise defined. This Court has subject matter and personal
1
2
3

jurisdiction over the Parties, including all Settlement Class Members.
Based on this Court’s review of the Agreement and all of the files, records, and

4 proceedings herein, the Court concludes, upon preliminary examination, that the Agreement and
5 Settlement appear fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for
6
7

preliminary settlement approval, and that a hearing should and will be held after notice to the
Settlement Class (as described in Paragraph C below) to confirm that the Agreement and

8
9
10
11

Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and to determine whether the Settlement should be
approved and final judgment entered in the Action based upon the Agreement.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

12
13

A.

Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.

The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate and within the
14
range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the
15
Agreement resulted from extensive arm’s length negotiations; and (b) the Agreement is
16
sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full
17
hearing on the approval of the Settlement.
18
B.

Class Certification For Settlement Purposes Only.

19
20

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally certifies, for
settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class:

21
22
23
24

All employees of the Defendants who are alleged to have been either
Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more
hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from
January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016, and who were paid less than the
prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050,
i.e., a base rate of $15.00 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 6

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

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

C.

Settlement Hearing.

A final approval hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) shall be held before the Honorable
Robert S. Lasnik on January 5, 2017, at 9:00 am as set forth in the notice to the Settlement Class
(described in Paragraph C below), to determine whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved. Papers in support of final approval of the Agreement, the
incentive awards to Plaintiffs, and Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees,
costs and expenses (the “Fee Application”) shall be filed with the Court according to the
schedule set forth in Paragraph M below. If the Settlement Hearing is postponed, adjourned, or
continued by order of the Court, the Parties shall notify the Settlement Class by posting the
change on the Settlement Website. After the Settlement Hearing, the Court may enter a
settlement order and final judgment in accordance with the Agreement that will adjudicate the
rights of the Settlement Class Members with respect to the Released Claims being settled. The
scope of the Released Claims shall be a full and complete release of any and all claims, known
or unknown, asserted or unasserted, arising under any provisions of Chap. 7.45 et seq. of the
City of SeaTac Municipal Code, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
D.

Class Notice.

Class Notice shall be sent within thirty (30) days following entry of this Order.
E.

Mail Notice.

The Claims Administrator will provide mail notice to persons in the Settlement Class for
whom Defendants possess a mailing address. Mail Notice will be sent via direct mail to the most
recent mailing address as reflected in reasonably available employment records of Defendants.
Skip tracing shall be performed by the Claims Administrator for all returned mail.

24
25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 7

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

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

F.

Findings Concerning Class Notice.

The Court finds that the foregoing program of Class Notice and the manner of its
dissemination is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably calculated
to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action and their right to object to or
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the amended Class
Notice program is reasonable, that it constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all
persons entitled to receive notice and that it meets the requirements of due process and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court hereby approves the Notice in substantially the same
form as presented in Dkt. #16-1.
G.

Administration.

The Claim Form and the claims submission process described in the Agreement and
Stipulated Motion are hereby approved. In addition, the Court confirms that it is appropriate for
Defendants to provide the information necessary to provide the notice contemplated herein and
to administer the settlement, including names, addresses and account information.
H.

Exclusion from the Settlement Class.
1. Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt out by sending a
written request to a designated address within sixty (60) days after the Notice
Deadline. All Settlement Class Members who do not opt out in accordance
with the terms set forth herein will be bound by all determinations and
judgments in the Action.
2. Exclusion requests must be signed and include a statement substantially as
follows: “I/we request to be excluded from the class settlement in Ali et al. v.
Menzies Aviation, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00262.”
3. The Claims Administrator will retain a copy of all requests for exclusion.

25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 8

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

1

4. Not later than 14 days from the exclusion deadline, the Claims Administrator

2

shall file with the Court a declaration that lists all of the opt-outs received.

3

I.

Objections And Appearances.

4

Any person in the Settlement Class who has not timely submitted a valid request for

5 exclusion from the Settlement Class, and thus is a Settlement Class Member, may appear at the
6 Final Approval Hearing to argue that the proposed Settlement should not be approved and/or to
7 oppose the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and the incentive awards
8 to the Plaintiffs.
1. In order to be heard at the hearing, the person must make any objection in

9
10

writing and file it with the Court not later than sixty (60) days after mailing of

11

the class notice. Any objections that are not timely filed and mailed shall be

12

forever barred.
2. In order to be heard at the hearing, the person also must file with the Court and

13

serve on all Parties a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Court.

14
15

J.

Further Papers In Support Of Settlement and Fee Application.

16

The deadline to respond to objections shall be fifteen (15) days following the

17 Objection/Exclusion deadline.
18
19
20

K.

Effect of Failure to Approve the Agreement.

In the event the Agreement is not approved by the Court, or for any reason the Parties

21 fail to obtain a Final Judgment as contemplated in the Agreement, or the Agreement is
22 terminated pursuant to its terms for any reason, then the following shall apply:
23
24

1. All orders and findings entered in connection with the Agreement shall
become null and void and have no further force and effect, shall not be used or

25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 9

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

1

referred to for any purposes whatsoever, and shall not be admissible or

2

discoverable in any other proceeding;

3

2. The conditional certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to this Order

4

shall be vacated automatically and void; no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or

5

preclusion shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings in the

6

Action; and the Agreement and its existence shall be inadmissible to establish

7

any fact relevant to class certification or any alleged liability of Defendants for

8

the matters alleged in the Actions or for any other purpose;

9

3. Nothing contained in this Order is, or may be construed as, any admission or

10

concession by or against Defendants or Plaintiffs on any point of fact or law.

11

L.

Stay/Bar Of Other Proceedings.

12

All proceedings in this Action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as

13 may be necessary to implement the terms of the settlement. Pending final determination of
14 whether the settlement should be approved, Plaintiffs, all persons in the Settlement Class and
15 persons purporting to act on their behalf are enjoined from commencing or prosecuting (either
16 directly, representatively or in any other capacity) against any of the Released Parties any
17 action, arbitration or proceeding in any court, arbitration forum or tribunal asserting any of the
18 Released Claims.
19
20
21

M.

Timeline.
X=

Date of this Order

X + 10

Deadline to serve CAFA Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)

X + 30

Notice Deadline.

X + 60

Deadline for Class Counsel to file Fee Petition and Request for
Incentive Awards. Fee petition must be posted on the Settlement
Website within 24 hours of filing with the Court.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 10

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC

1
2

X + 90

Claim, Exclusion, and Objection Deadline.

X + 105

Deadline for parties to submit responses to any objections and
motion for final approval

3
4

Y=

Final approval hearing on January 5, 2017, at 9:00 am.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated this 6th day of September, 2016.

8

A
Robert S. Lasnik

9

United States District Judge

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

Order Lifting Stay, Granting Class Certification and
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement - 11

BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
1992 9 Balling er Wa y NE, Su it e 2 00
S eat t le, WA 9 8 1 5 5
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PLLC