Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0401 Labor Management Disclosure Act

---

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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

(Counsel of Record are Listed on Next Page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH GLASS, DANTE 

DIFRANCESCO, RALPH CARBONE, 

AND DAVID BACHRACH, individually, 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

FOR FINAL APPROVAL; JUDGMENT 

Date: January 19, 2007 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 6
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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

KEVIN J. McINERNEY (NYS #KM0163) 

CHARLES A. JONES (CA SB# 224915) 

McINERNEY AND JONES 

18124 Wedge Parkway, Suite 503 

Reno, NV 89511 

Telephone: (775) 849-3811

Facsimile: (775) 849 3866 

MICHAEL SHEN (MS5714) 

MICHAEL SHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

225 Broadway, Suite 2515 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 227-0300 

Facsimile: (212) 227-2714 

JEFFREY DONOFRIO (ct07738) 

CIULLA & DONOFRIO 

127 Washington Ave. 

North Haven, CT 06473 

Telephone: (203) 239-9828 

Facsimile: (203) 234-0379 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

M. KIRBY C. WILCOX (SB# 78576) kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com 

MICHAEL M. PFYL (SB# 240925) michaelpfyl@paulhastings.com 

MOLLY A. HARCOS (SB# 233556) mollyharcos@paulhastings.com 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

55 Second Street 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 6
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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

 On January 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., the Court heard the joint motion by defendant 

UBS Financial Services Inc. (“UBS”) and plaintiffs Joseph Glass, Dante DiFrancesco, Ralph 

Carbone, and David Bachrach (“Plaintiffs”) for final approval of the proposed class action 

settlement in the instant action. After reviewing the parties’ written submissions, and after 

hearing arguments of counsel, the Court finds and orders as follows: 

1. All terms used in this order (“Final Order”) shall have the same meaning as 

defined in the Parties’ “Amended Joint Stipulation of Settlement And Release Between Plaintiffs 

Joseph Glass, Dante DiFrancesco, Ralph Carbone, and David Bachrach and Defendant UBS 

Financial Services Inc.” (“Settlement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Instant action and 

over all parties, including all Class Members.

3. Pursuant to the Court’s “Order Granting Preliminary Approval Of 

Settlement And Setting Final Approval Hearing” dated August 25, 2006 (“Preliminary Approval 

Order”), the Court preliminarily certified the following class for settlement purposes (the 

“Class”):

ALL CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF UBS 

FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. (“UBS”) WHO WERE 

EMPLOYED BY UBS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA AS FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND/OR NEW 

FINANCIAL ADVISORS OR FINANCIAL ADVISOR 

TRAINEES DURING ALL OR PART OF THE APPLICABLE 

PERIOD FOR THE STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH 

THEY WERE EMPLOYED BY UBS, AS SET FORTH IN 

EXHIBIT E TO THE AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION OF 

SETTLEMENT AND THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF 

CLASS ACTION. 

The Class is now finally and conclusively certified for settlement purposes. 

4. In accordance with the Preliminary Order, the parties caused to be mailed 

the following: (1) Notice of Pendency of Class Action And Opportunity to Opt In, Proposed 

Settlement And Hearing Date For Court Approval; (2) Consent to Join Settlement Form; (3) 

Claim Form; and (4) Exclusion Form (collectively the “Notice Materials”). The Notice Materials 

were sent via first class mail within the time mandated in the Preliminary Approval Order, and 

adequately informed the Class of: (1) the pendency of the proposed Settlement; (2) all material 

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 6
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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

elements of the proposed Settlement; (3) the January 19, 2007 hearing date for final approval of 

the Settlement; and (4) the opportunity to be excluded from the proposed Class or otherwise 

object to the proposed Settlement. David C. Holland of Rust Consulting, Inc., the Claims 

Administrator, filed a declaration with the Court on January 5, 2007, concerning the 

dissemination of the Notice Materials and the status of claims and objections.

5. The Notice Materials provided due and adequate notice to Class Members 

and constitute the best notice practicable and possible under the circumstances. The proof of 

dissemination filed with the Court demonstrates that this Court’s orders have been complied with 

in regard to the Notice Materials and preliminary approval of the Settlement, and further, that the 

best notice practicable and possible under the circumstances was in fact given and constituted 

valid, due, and sufficient notice to members of the Class, complying fully with all applicable 

statutes and laws.

6. In accordance with Class Action Fairness Act requirements, the parties 

caused to be mailed a copy of the Notice Materials and a complete list of the Class Members to 

the Attorneys General in each of the 50 jurisdictions encompassed by the Settlement. 

7. The Attorney General of New York filed a Motion to Appear As Amicus

Curiae To Comment on the Proposed Class Action. The Court granted the motion.

8. Eight Class Members and the Attorney General of the State of New York 

have objected to the Settlement. The Court rejects these objections.

9. Additionally, Class Member Lawrence R. Kaufmann, filed a Motion to 

Intervene in the Instant action through his attorney Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, which motion 

contained objections to the settlement. Kaufmann withdrew his motion, and the Court permitted 

Kaufmann to withdraw the objections contained therein. The Court further denied the motion of 

Anthony D’Aria to substitute for Lawrence R. Kaufmann as an objector and/or intervenor. The 

Court also denied Anthony D’Aria’s motion to intervene.

10. The Court finds that the Settlement was the product of arms-length 

negotiations between experienced counsel, assisted by a respected mediator. The Court finds that 

the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hereby grants final approval to the 

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 6
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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-3- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

Settlement. In so doing, the Court has thoroughly considered such factors as: the strength of the 

plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of 

maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of 

discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; and 

the reaction of the Class Members to the proposed Settlement. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150

F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs and Defendant are ordered to carry out the terms of 

the Settlement.

11. Defendant shall pay the claims presented by the claim procedure described 

in the Settlement. Defendant shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ 

fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability, except as provided in the Settlement.

12. The Class is bound by the release and waiver listed in Paragraphs 48 and 

49 of the Settlement, respectively, and this Final Order, which Final Order shall have the force 

and effect of res judicata as to them. 

13. The class representatives, Joseph Glass, Dante DiFrancesco, Ralph 

Carbone, and David Bachrach, are bound by the release and waiver listed in Paragraphs 50 and 51 

of the Settlement, respectively, and this Final Order, which Final Order shall have the force and 

effect of res judicata as to them. 

14. The Settlement is not an admission by UBS nor is this Final Order a 

finding of the validity of any claims in the Instant action or any wrongdoing by UBS. In addition, 

the Settlement is not an admission nor is this Final Order a finding that the certification of the 

Class is proper for any purpose or proceeding other than for settlement purposes in the present 

case. Furthermore, neither the Settlement, nor any document, statement, proceeding or conduct 

related to the settlement or the Settlement, nor any reports or accounting of those matters, will be 

(i) construed as, offered or admitted in evidence as, received as, or deemed to be evidence for any 

purpose adverse to UBS, including, but not limited to, evidence of a presumption, concession, 

indication or admission by UBS of any liability, fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession or 

damage; or (ii) disclosed, referred to or offered in evidence against UBS, in any further 

proceeding in the instant action, or any other civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding 

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 5 of 6
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

CASE NO. C-06-4068 MMC 

LEGAL_US_W # 55316029.1

-4- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

except for purposes of effectuating the Settlement. However, the Settlement may be admitted in 

evidence and otherwise used in any and all proceedings to enforce any or all terms of the 

Settlement, or in defense of any claims released or barred by the Settlement.

15. The claims alleged in the Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice, 

provided, however, and without affecting the finality of this Final Order in any way, this Court 

retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, administration and 

enforcement of the terms of the Settlement.

16. This Final Order is deemed final entry of judgment as defined by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 26, 2007 

HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 231 Filed 01/26/07 Page 6 of 6