Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc

Filing 138

ORDER re the parties' 137 joint request to approve the proposed class notice plan. The Court GRANTS the parties' joint request for approval of the proposed class notice plan (Dkt. No. 137 ) and further ORDERS that expert reports must be disclosed by August 13, 2021. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

VALERIE SAMPSON and DAVID
RAYMOND, on their own behalf and on the
behalf of all others similarly situated,

11
12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. C17-0028-JCC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., an
Arizona corporation, KNIGHT
REFRIGERATED, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, and KNIGHT PORT
SERVICES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company,

17

Defendants.

18
19

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint request to approve the proposed

20

class notice plan (Dkt. No. 137). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the

21

relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for

22

the reasons explained herein.

23

In June 2020, the Court certified a class of “[a]ll current and former driver employees of

24

Knight Transportation, Inc., Knight Refrigerated, LLC, and/or Knight Port Services, LLC who at

25

any time from July 1, 2013, through the date of final disposition, worked as drivers while

26

residing in the state of Washington.” (Dkt. No. 117 at 12.) In September 2020, notice was
ORDER
C17-0028-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

distributed to then-existing class members. (Dkt. No. 118 at 3.) Because the original class

2

definition was open ended, new driver employees have become part of the class since then.

3

Earlier this month, the Court imposed an end date on the class, limiting it to drivers employed

4

through June 3, 2021. (Dkt. No. 136 at 11.) The parties now move for approval of their plan to

5

provide notice to the new class members to whom notice was not previously distributed. (Dkt.

6

No. 137 at 1–4.) The parties also ask the Court to extend the expert report deadline from July 23,

7

2021 to August 13, 2021. (Id. at 4.)

8
9

The Court must “direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through

10

reasonable effort.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The class notice must be stated in “plain,

11

easily understood language” and contain: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the

12

class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an

13

appearance through an attorney; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who

14

requests it; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a

15

class judgment on members. Id.

16

The Court FINDS that the parties’ proposed notice form and notice plan, (Dkt. Nos. 137-

17

2, 137-3), satisfy the elements of Rule 23. Further, the Court FINDS good cause to extend the

18

expert report deadline. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint request for approval of

19

the proposed class notice plan (Dkt. No. 137) and further ORDERS that expert reports must be

20

disclosed by August 13, 2021.

21

DATED this 22nd day of June 2021.

24

A

25

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23

26
ORDER
C17-0028-JCC
PAGE - 2