Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00036/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00036-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAMARAJ KHATRI,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS 

GROUP RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00036-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

The Court had a hearing on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval 

of Class Action Settlement came on for hearing before this Court on November 28, 2016 at

10:00 a.m., the Honorable Thelton Henderson presiding. Having considered the motion

and its supporting papers and for good cause shown, the Court has granted preliminary 

approval on November 28, 2016 (Dkt. 41) but hereby also signs this Proposed Order which 

sets forth more detailed terms of the proposed settlement and the implementation schedule 

for settlement administration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed class action 

settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action 

Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ronald 

H. Bae in support of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval.

2. The Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement 

and finds that the proposed settlement appears to be within the range of reasonableness 

necessary for preliminary approval by the Court, but final determination of whether the 

proposed settlement terms are fair, adequate and reasonable will be made at the final 

approval hearing.

Case 3:15-cv-00036-TEH Document 43 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

3. With respect to the Class and for purposes of approving this settlement only, 

this Court preliminarily finds that: (a) the members of the Class are ascertainable and so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and 

fact common to the Class and there is a well-defined community of interest among the 

Class Members with respect to the subject matter of the litigation; (c) the claims of the 

Class Representative and the defenses thereto are typical of the claims of the Class 

Members and the defenses thereto; (d) the Class Representative will fairly and adequately 

protected the interests of the Class Members; (e) a class action is superior to other 

available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) counsel of 

record for the Class Representative is qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiff in his

individual and representative capacity and for the Class.

4. The Court therefore conditionally certifies a Settlement Class defined as 

follows:

All non-exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for any of 

the Defendants InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., 

IHC of San Francisco, Inc., or IHG Management (Maryland) 

LLC at the InterContinental San Francisco, InterContinental 

Mark Hopkins, or InterContinental Los Angeles Century City 

hotels at any time between November 26, 2010 and the date of 

preliminary approval, and who were required to wear uniforms 

and undergo security bag checks.

5. The Court preliminarily approves Plaintiff Namaraj Khatri to serve as the 

Class Representative. The Court recognizes that the proposed settlement provides that 

Plaintiff may seek a Class Representative Enhancement Award of $10,000, which 

Defendant does not oppose. The Court preliminarily finds that some amount up to 

$10,000 may be fair and reasonable, but the finding as to the actual amount to be awarded 

will be determined at the final approval hearing.

6. The Court preliminarily approves Aequitas Legal Group, A Professional Law 

Corporation to serve as Class Counsel. The Court recognizes that as part of the proposed 

settlement, Defendant has agreed not to oppose Class Counsel’s fee request of up to 

$273,000 (28% of the Total Settlement Amount) and costs not to exceed $20,000. The 

Case 3:15-cv-00036-TEH Document 43 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Court preliminarily finds that some amount up to $273,000 in fees and some amount up to 

$20,000 in costs may be fair and reasonable, but the finding as to the actual amounts to be 

awarded will be determined at the final approval hearing. 

7. The Court approves the format and content of the Notice of Class Action 

Settlement and Opt-Out Form (the “Notice Packet”) attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the 

Settlement Agreement, respectively. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice 

Packet in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement complies with the requirements 

of due process and appears to be the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The 

Notice Packet shall be sent in three languages: English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese.

8. The Court appoints Simpluris, Inc. to serve as the Settlement Administrator 

and preliminarily approves that all settlement administration costs be paid from the Total 

Settlement Amount. The Court directs Simpluris, Inc. to disseminate the Notice Packet in 

the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

9. The Court orders Defendant’s counsel to serve the necessary CAFA 

notifications to the appropriate federal and/or state officials within 10 days of preliminary 

approval of the settlement.

10. The Court orders the following implementation schedule for further 

proceedings:

a.

Deadline for Defendants to Submit 

Class List and Data to Settlement 

Administrator

December 7, 2016

Seven (7) court days after the Order 

Granting Preliminary Approval

b.

Deadline for Settlement 

Administrator to Mail the Notice 

Packet to Class Members

December 21, 2016

Ten (10) court days after Defendants 

provide the Settlement Administrator with 

the Class List and Data

c.

Deadline for Settlement 

Administrator to Mail Reminder 

Post-Cards to Class Members

January 20, 2017

Not more than thirty (30) calendar days (nor 

fewer than twenty-five (25) days) after 

mailing of Notice Packets to Class Members

Case 3:15-cv-00036-TEH Document 43 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

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

d.

Deadline for Class Members to 

Submit Opt-Out Forms or 

Objections to Settlement

February 6, 2017

Forty-five (45) calendar days after mailing 

of Notice Packets to Class Members

e.

Deadline for Class Counsel to file 

Motion for Award of Class 

Representative Enhancement 

Award, Claims Administrator’s 

Expenses and Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs

January 23, 2017

14 days before the February 6, 2017 

objection deadline

f.

Deadline for Class Counsel to file 

Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement February 20, 2017

g.

Hearing on:

 Motion for Final Approval 

of Class Action Settlement;

 Motion for Award of Class 

Representative 

Enhancement Award, 

Settlement Administrator’s 

Expenses and Attorneys’ 

Fees and Costs

March 27, 2017 (Monday)

at 10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/06/16 _____________________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00036-TEH Document 43 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 4