Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01451-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE WILKIE, individually

and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:10-cv-01451-GEB-GGH

ORDER (1) FINALLY APPROVING

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION

SETTLEMENT; (2) FINALLY

CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT

CLASSES; (3) AWARDING

ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND

EXPENSES; (4) AWARDING AN

INCENTIVE PAYMENT TO THE

REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF; AND

(5) DISMISSING THE CLAIMS

WITH PREJUDICE

The parties’ proposed Order, filed on the docket as ECF No.

74-6, and amended at the hearing on March 25, 2013, is hereby approved

and reproduced below. 

The parties to the above-captioned civil action (“Action”),

Plaintiff Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of others

similarly situated (“Representative Plaintiff”) and Defendant Gentiva

Health Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and its past, present, or

future subsidiaries, parent companies, affiliates, divisions,

corporation in common control, successors or assigns and all past or

present officers, directors, shareholders, partners, agents, insurers,

employees, attorneys, advisors, accountants, representatives, trustees,

heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors or assigns of

1

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 9
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

any of the foregoing entities (collectively “Gentiva”), have agreed,

following notice to the proposed Settlement Classes, to settle the

Action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement

Agreement (“Settlement”), which was filed with the Court in connection 1

with the present motion by Representative Plaintiff for an Order Finally

Approving Class and Collective Action Settlement, Finally Certifying

Settlement Classes, Requesting an Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and

Expenses to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and Requesting an Incentive Award to

the Representative Plaintiff.

On October 5, 2012, the Court entered its order Preliminarily

Approving Settlement, Preliminarily Certifying Settlement Classes,

Approving the Notice Plan and Setting a Fairness Hearing Date. The Court

has received declarations attesting to the mailing of the Notice in

accordance with the Order for Notice and Hearing. A hearing was held on

March 25, 2013 (“Final Approval and Fairness Hearing”) to: (i) determine

whether to grant the Final Approval Motion; (ii) determine whether to

grant the Fees and Expenses requested, and (iii) rule upon such other

matters as the Court might deem appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed by Gentiva and was submitted

to this Court for review and approval on March 1, 2013. After

considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Settlement Agreement, the record and

proceedings herein, and hearing from the parties and class members

invited to attend the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, the Court

finds, concludes, and hereby orders as follows:

 Capitalized terms that appear in both this Order and the 1

Settlement Agreement shall have the meaning defined in the

Settlement Agreement.

2

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 9
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. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action, all members of the Class, and Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

1132(e).

2. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and

the requirements of due process, the Stipulated Settlement Classes have

been given proper and adequate notice of the Settlement, the Fairness

Hearing, and such notice was carried out in accordance with the

Preliminary Approval Order.

3. Prior to the final settlement approval hearing, a

declaration was filed with the Court by the Settlement Administrator,

The Garden City Group, confirming that Notice was given in accordance

with the terms of the Court’s previous Order preliminarily approving the

Settlement.

4. No members of the Stipulated Settlement Classes objected to

any part of the Settlement, including its substantive terms, the

requests for fees and expenses or any other matter therein contained.

Given the size of this Settlement, and the notice procedure utilized,

this Court finds the lack of any material objections to be indicative of

the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement, and,

accordingly, all members of the Stipulated Settlement Classes are deemed

to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or

otherwise.

5. Five individuals have sought to opt themselves out of the

Settlement. They are Tosha Arness Engstrom, Karen Hull, Jennifer

Mitosinka, Janice M. Robinson, and Karen Smith, and, accordingly, these

individuals will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement or the

Judgment in this case.

3

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 9
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. The Notice and notice methodology implemented pursuant to

the Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Preliminary Approval order (a)

were appropriate and reasonable and constituted due, adequate,

sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice; and (b) met all

applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any

other applicable law.

7. The Settlement Claims Administrator has received Claim

Forms postmarked after the January 3, 2013 deadline for submission of

timely Claim Forms. For good cause shown and by agreement of the

parties, the Court grants leave to give effect to all the late Claim

Forms received by the Settlement Claims Administrator up to and

including the date of the Final Approval Hearing, which was held on

March 25, 2013.

8. The Settlement was negotiated with the assistance of an

experienced mediator at arm’s-length by experienced counsel who were

fully informed of the facts and circumstances of the action and of the

strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. The Settlement

was reached after the parties had completed extensive discovery and

investigation, conducted legal research and written discovery, deposed

representative Plaintiff, opt-ins, and 30(b)(6) representatives of

Defendant, and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents produced by

the parties. Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Counsel are therefore well

positioned to evaluate the benefits of the Settlement, taking into

account the expense, risk, and uncertainty of protracted litigation over

numerous questions of fact and law.

9. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and

the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is of the opinion

that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the

4

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 4 of 9
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

claims against the Defendant in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). There are a

number of factors which the Court has considered in affirming this

Settlement, including:

a. The liability issues in this case have been contested.

b. This Settlement has the benefit of providing relief to the

members of the Settlement Classes now, without further litigation, under

circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously contested

among the parties to this litigation. This Settlement provides the

members of the Settlement Classes with a substantial monetary benefit.

c. This Settlement is clearly a byproduct of hard-fought

negotiation between the parties, and not a result of any collusion on

the part of Class Counsel or counsel for the Defendant.

10. The Court certifies the following Classes for purposes of

this Settlement only:

(a) Collective Action Class: Pursuant to 216(b), this class

includes all clinical associates who are or were employed by Gentiva

either in California or at Gentiva’s branch locations in Hickory, North

Carolina (Branch Nos. 2447 and 947); Fort Walton Beach, Florida (Branch

Nos. 2100 and 2101); Troy, Alabama (Branch No. 2431) and Newnan, Georgia

(Branch Nos. 2659 and 2555) and paid pursuant to Gentiva’s Pay Per Visit

Program for work performed at any time between June 11, 2007 through the

Date of Preliminary Approval and who timely returned a Claim Form

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order, but

not including any of the Rindfleisch Plaintiffs.2

“Rindfleisch Plaintiffs” refers to the named plaintiffs and 2

any individuals who have opted-in (and not withdrawn) as plaintiffs

to the case of Lisa Rindfleisch, et al. v. Gentiva Health Services,

(continued...)

5

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 5 of 9
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

(b) Rule 23 Class: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23, this class includes all clinical associates who are or were employed

by Gentiva in California and paid pursuant to Gentiva’s Pay Per Visit

Program for work performed at any time between June 11, 2006 through the

Date of Preliminary Approval and who did not return a timely Opt-out

Statement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but not

including any of the Rindfleisch Plaintiffs.

11. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement,

the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are

satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for

resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for

class certification under Rule 23 are present. The Rule 23 Class Members

are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions of law and

fact common to all the Rule 23 Class Members for settlement purposes

predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one

proceeding with respect to all of the Rule 23 Class Members. The

Settlement Class Representatives’ claims are typical of those of the

Settlement Classes for settlement purposes. The Settlement Class

Representatives and Class Counsel meet the adequacy requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). For settlement purposes, the class action mechanism

is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and resolving this

action.

12. The Court further finds that, for Settlement purposes, the

requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) are met for a collective action and

the Court certifies the Collective Action Class defined above for final

(...continued)

Inc., Case No. 1:10-CV-03288-SJC, pending in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

6

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 6 of 9
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

settlement purposes. The Court finds that for settlement purposes the

Collective Action Class Members are similarly situated as that term is

defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act and that a collective action

mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and

resolving this action.

13. The certification of the Settlement Classes is for

settlement purposes only and shall not constitute, nor be construed as,

an admission on the part of Gentiva that this Action, or any other

proposed or certified class action is appropriate for class treatment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), or

any other similar class action statute or rule.

14. The Notice sent by the Settlement Claims Administrator to

the Stipulated Class Members set forth Class Counsel’s proposed

application for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses consistent with

the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Court’s Order

preliminarily approving the Settlement. No objections were received to

the application. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the

amount of 25% of the Total Settlement Amount amounting to $1,250,000,

which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and $42,047 in

reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting the action.

The attorneys’ fees and expenses so awarded shall be paid from the Total

Settlement Amount pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All

fees and expenses paid to Class Counsel shall be paid pursuant to the

timing requirements described in the Settlement Agreement.

15. The Notice sent by the Settlement Claims Administrator to

the Stipulated Class Members set forth Class Counsel’s proposed

application for an award of $5,000 to the Representative Plaintiff

Catherine Wilkie. No objections were received to this application. Ms.

7

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 7 of 9
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

Wilkie is hereby awarded $5,000. The Court finds that this award is

reasonable for the services provided by the Representative Plaintiff to

the Classes and hereby directs payment to the Representative Plaintiff

of $5,000 out of the Total Settlement Amount, pursuant to the terms of

the parties’ Settlement Agreement.

16. The Court finds that the request for payment of the

incurred and anticipated costs of the Settlement Claims Administrator,

The Garden City Group, estimated to be approximately $128,400, are

reasonable and are approved. All costs incurred by the Settlement Claims

Administrator shall be paid from the Total Settlement Amount pursuant to

the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

17. All members of the Settlement Classes, except the

individuals designated in paragraph 5, above, shall be bound by all of

the terms, conditions and obligations of the Settlement Agreement, and

all determinations and judgments in the Action concerning the

Settlement.

18. Neither the Settlement, nor any of its terms of

provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceeding connected with it,

shall be construed as an admission or concession by any party of the

truth of any allegation in the Action or of any liability, fault, or

wrongdoing of any kind.

19. All claims asserted in this Action are dismissed with

prejudice and without costs, without further order of the Court,

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but the Court shall

retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the Action, all Parties,

and Settlement Classes’ members, to interpret and enforce the terms,

conditions and obligations of the Settlement Agreement.

8

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 8 of 9
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

20. At the conclusion of the disbursement of the net

settlement fund, the parties shall provide a final accounting of the

disbursement to the Court, and shall make a proposal for the

disbursement of any remaining funds to a cy pres beneficiary subject to

the Court’s review and approval. Upon entry of the order regarding the

cy pres distribution, the Action shall be finally dismissed with

prejudice. 

21. A status conference is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m.

on March 3, 2014. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14)

days prior to the status conference, in which the parties are only

required to address paragraph 20 of this Order. 

Dated: March 25, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

9

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MCE-CKD Document 77 Filed 03/26/13 Page 9 of 9