Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01347-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GABE WRIGHT and PAUL CROWLEY, 

individually and on behalf of 

all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LINKUS ENTERPRISES, INC., RFG 

CORPORATION, RIDGELINE SERVICES, 

INC., and PREMIER PERSONNEL and 

DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 2:07-cv-01347-MCE-CMK 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF THE JOINT 

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final 

Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, filed on 

December 15, 2009 after the Court preliminarily approved the 

parties’ Settlement on July 29, 2009 and thereafter directed that 

notice be provided to class members concerning the proposed 

Settlement. 

Pursuant to the July 29, 2009 Preliminary Approval Order, 

Notice was given to the Class by mailing a Notice and Claim Form on 

or about September 16, 2009. The Notice advised Class Members of 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 8
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

2 

the opportunity to object to the Joint Stipulation of Settlement 

and/or Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs and Class Representative enhancements, and of the opportunity 

for Class Members to exclude themselves from the Class. The Notice 

further provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Court’s 

preliminary approval, that any objection to the Settlement had to 

be submitted not later than November 2, 2009. The Notice went on 

to unequivocally state that failure to comply with the deadline for 

objection would constitute a waiver of any objection, and that such 

failure would foreclose “any objection or appealing from any order 

or judgment entered on the Settlement.” No objections were 

received by the Court, Counsel, or Claims Administrator within the 

relevant time period. Consequently, on December 15, 2009, Class 

Counsel filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement and supporting papers, as well as a request for an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants have not opposed the 

motion. 

Nonetheless, on January 21, 2009, nearly two months after the 

time period for registering any objection expired, and just one 

week before the scheduled hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for final 

approval, counsel for a Nevada class member, Joe Valdez, filed 

objections to the Settlement. That objection is clearly tardy. 

While Valdez’ counsel urges the Court to overlook the timeliness 

issue on grounds that neither he nor his client knew about the 

proposed Settlement until December 29, 2009, Valdez himself 

presented no sworn declaration that he had not received the Notice 

and Claim Form in September of 2009. 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 8
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

3 

Moreover, and even more importantly, Valdez’ counsel admit that at 

the very least he and his client knew about the pending Settlement 

more than three weeks before the scheduled hearing, but failed to 

file anything with the court until the very eve of final approval 

despite that knowledge. That omission alone is enough to disregard 

Valdez’ objection. 

Irrespective of whether or not the Valdez objection is 

considered, however, it is uncontroverted that the proposed 

Settlement has been resoundingly supported by the remainder of the 

Class. Nearly 50 percent of the Class of some 3,404 individuals 

(1,563) have submitted claims forms and have expressed their desire 

to participate in the Settlement if approved by the Court. Only 

two potential class members have opted out of the Settlement and 

Mr. Valdez is the only person to have raised any objection. 

As pertinent case law has confirmed, “the absence of a large 

number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a 

strong presumption that the terms of the proposed settlement are 

favorable to the class members.” In re Omnivision Technologies, 

Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “While the 

presence of objecting members is a relevant factor, it is not 

dispositive even when many class members object.” League of Martin 

v. City of Milwaukee, 588 F. Supp. 1004, 1022 (E.D. Wis. 1984), 

citing Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 326 

(7th Cir. 1980). Indeed, courts have approved settlements despite 

objections from significant numbers of class members. Id., see 

also Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1983) (no 

error where lower court approved settlement despite objection from 

some 41 percent of class members). 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 8
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

4 

Here, after having read and fully considered the terms of the 

Joint Stipulation of Settlement, the Motion for Final Approval of 

the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, the request for the Class 

Representative enhancements, and the request for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs and all other documents on file in this 

matter, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 

1. The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts the 

definitions of “Class” and “Class Members” as follows” 

“All individuals who did not opt out and who 

from July 6, 2003 through July 29, 2009: (1) were 

employed as satellite technicians in California, 

Nevada or Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) were categorized 

by LINKUS as PEO employees and who performed work 

as a satellite technician through Premier 

Personnel, RFG, or Ridgeline (and all fictitious 

business names of those entities) for LINKUS. 

Class Members are part of one or more Subclasses 

which are defined below: 

Subclass One: All individuals who, as of the 

date of the Final Approval Hearing on the 

Settlement have filed with the Court a claim form 

consenting to join this action as a plaintiff 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 261(b) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, and who, between July 6, 2003 

and July 29, 2009 were: 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 8
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 

(1) directly employed as satellite technicians in 

California, Nevada or Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) were 

categorized by LINKUS as PEO employees and who 

performed work as a satellite technician LINKUS 

through Premier Personnel, RFG, or Ridgeline (and 

all fictitious business names of those entities). 

Subclass Two: All individuals who, between 

July 6, 2003 and July 29, 2009 were: (1) employed 

as satellite technicians in California, Nevada or 

Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) categorized by LINKUS as 

PEO employees and who performed work for LINKUS as 

a satellite technician through Premier Personnel, 

RFG, or Ridgeline (and all fictitious business 

names of those entities.” 

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Class 

Members, except for those who have timely opted out of the Class, 

and has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, including, 

without limitation, jurisdiction to (1) approve the Settlement, 

(2) issue an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel and 

enhancement awards to the Class Representatives; and (3) entering 

final judgment that dismisses the action with prejudice after all 

sums due and owing under the Settlement are paid and which will 

permanently bar all claims released by the Settlement except for 

claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of those persons who did 

not submit a request to join the Class. 

3. The Class is certified. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6 

4. The Settlement is, after hearing, determined to be fair, 

reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. It is, 

therefore, approved. With respect to the determination that the 

Joint Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, 

the Court specifically notes that the outcome of a trial on the 

merits was by no means certain, the litigation involved highly 

complex factual and legal issues, the Joint Stipulation of 

Settlement was reached with the participation of a respected 

mediator, and the monetary terms of the Settlement reflect 

substantial benefits to the Class. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, 

to be entered pursuant to this Order, this action will be dismissed 

with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs, except as set 

forth herein. It is further ordered that each and every term, 

provision, condition, and agreement of the Joint Stipulation of 

Settlement are adopted, incorporated and made part of this Order 

and Judgment, and shall be effective, implemented, and enforced as 

provided in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 

5. Based on the Motion for Final Approval and documents 

submitted therewith, the Court finds that the distribution of the 

Notice and Claim Form were materially implemented to all Class 

Members in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(c)(2)(B), with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement 

and the Preliminary Approval Order. 

6. Based on the Motion for Final Approval and request for 

enhancement payments to the Class Representatives, which is 

unopposed by Defendants, each Class Representative is awarded 

$5,000.00. 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7 

7. Based on the materials submitted by Class Counsel in 

support of the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, 

which is unopposed by Defendants, Class Counsel is awarded 

$625,000.00 as compensation and reimbursement for expenses. 

8. The Settlement monies shall be distributed as set forth 

in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 

9. This Order and the Final Judgment permanently bars all 

Claims released by the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, including, 

without limitation, all Subclass One Released Claims for those 

persons who are Subclass One Members and all Subclass Two Released 

Claims for all Class Members except for the two individuals who 

opted out of the Settlement. 

10. This Order and the Final Judgment incorporates herein the 

releases in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, including, without 

limitation, in Section 18 of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 

11. The Court retains jurisdiction over the Settlement of 

this case and may enter additional orders to effectuate the fair 

and orderly administration of the Settlement as may from time to 

time be appropriate. The retention of jurisdiction includes, 

without limitation, enforcement of the releases in Section 18 of 

the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and/or other provisions of the 

Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8 

12. The Court dismisses the action on the merits and with 

prejudice and the Subclass One Released Claims and Subclass Two 

Released Claims as defined in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 

The two persons who opted out of the Joint Stipulation of 

Settlement have not released any claims pursuant to this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 3, 2010

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-01347-MCE -CMK Document 113 Filed 02/04/10 Page 8 of 8