Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02846/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02846-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERA WILLNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANPOWER INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-02846-JST 

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

Re: ECF No. 184

In this action for claims arising out of purported violations of California labor laws, 

Plaintiff Vera Willner moves for an order (1) preliminarily approving the parties’ settlement 

agreement; (2) conditionally certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes; (3) appointing 

Willner as class representative and her counsel as class counsel; (4) approving and directing the 

mailing of the proposed notice pursuant to the proposed notice plan; and (5) scheduling a fairness 

hearing for final approval of the settlement agreement. ECF No. 184. Manpower has filed a 

statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 186. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is 

GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. The Parties and Claims 

Plaintiff Vera Willner is an hourly employee of Manpower, which operates a “temporary 

employment agency.” ECF 118 ¶ 2. She received her wages from Manpower by U.S. mail and 

was paid on a weekly basis when work was assigned to her. Id. Willner brings this putative class 

action against Manpower “for California Labor Code violations stemming from [Manpower’s] 

failure to furnish accurate wage statements and failure to timely pay all wages to employees who 

received their wages by U.S. mail.” Id. ¶ 1. 

Willner asserts the following five claims in the operative complaint: (1) violations of 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

California Labor Code section 201.3(b)(1) for failure to pay timely weekly wages; (2) violations 

of California Labor Code section 226 for failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (3) 

violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) for failure to provide accurate wage 

statements and to pay timely wages; (4) penalties under the Private Attorney General Act 

(“PAGA”) for failure to provide accurate wage statements and to pay timely wages; and (5) 

violations of California Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for failure to pay timely wages due at 

separation.

B. Procedural History

In its order of March 31, 2014, the Court denied Manpower’s motion for summary 

judgment on Willner’s section 226 and UCL claims on the ground that a genuine issue of material 

fact exists with respect to whether Manpower’s violations of section 226(a) were knowing and 

intentional. ECF No. 117. In the same order, the Court granted Willner’s motion for summary 

judgment as to her PAGA claim, which is based on Manpower’s violations of section 226(a), and 

it granted Manpower’s motion for summary judgment on Willner’s claim under section 

201.3(b)(1). Id. On April 1, 2014, Willner filed the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, which 

added inaccurate wage statement allegations on behalf of employees who received their paystubs 

by means other than mail. ECF No. 118. On June 30, 2014, the Court denied Manpower’s motion 

to dismiss and/or strike this addition. ECF No. 141. 

Following the Court’s March 31 Order, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and, 

on July 2, 2014, participated in a full-day mediation before Jeffrey A. Ross, an experienced 

mediator with expertise in wage and hour law. ECF No. 184-1 ¶¶ 21–22. After a full day of arm’s 

length negotiation, the parties agreed to the core terms of the proposed settlement that is the 

subject of this motion. Id. ¶ 22. After several weeks of further settlement negotiations, the parties 

finalized the settlement, which was fully-executed on July 31, 2014.1 Id. On August 1, 2014, 

Willner filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. ECF No. 150. On 

August 4, 2014, Manpower filed its statement of non-opposition to the motion. ECF No. 151. 

 

1

The terms of the proposed settlement agreement are described in detail in this Court’s Order of 

September 3, 2014. ECF No. 177 at 3–7. 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On September 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary approval without prejudice. ECF No. 177. The Court found that Willner had satisfied 

the Rule 23 requirements for certification of the putative class for settlement purposes and that 

Willner’s assertions “support the conclusion that the parties were sufficiently informed about the 

strengths and weaknesses of Willner’s claims when negotiating the settlement and that the 

settlement is non-collusive and likely to benefit the class members.” Id. at 8–12. However, the 

Court identified three obvious deficiencies in the settlement agreement. Id. at 12. First, the Court 

concluded that the scope of the release pertaining to the class members was overly broad, and 

invited the parties to cure the excessive breadth by changing the phrase “related in any way” to 

“arise out of the allegations in the operative complaint.” Id. at 12–13. Second, the Court noted

that the proposed notice: (1) stated that there were approximately 18,039 members in the 

settlement class, whereas Willner’s counsel identified 20,270 class members; (2) omitted the 

average payment that each claimant can expect to receive; and (3) omitted the amount that is 

expected to be paid to the claims administrator and the address of the claim administrator. Id. at 

13. Third, the Court found the thirty-day period to opt out or object to the settlement too short in 

duration and suggested that sixty days would be more reasonable. Id. The Court invited Plaintiff 

to file a new motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, curing each of these 

deficiencies, within sixty days. Id. at 13–14.

On September 26, 2014, the parties entered into an amended Settlement Agreement. ECF 

No. 184-1 ¶ 26, Ex. 1. Willner filed her Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement on October 1, 2014. ECF No. 184. Manpower filed its statement of nonopposition on October 8, 2014. ECF No. 186. Willner explains that she will file separate motions 

concerning attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and Willner’s proposed service award prior to the 

opt-out/objection deadline. ECF No. 184 at 23, 25. 

On October 15, 2014, “Potentially Interested Parties and possible putative class members”

Claudia Padilla and Leslie Guido filed a Conditional Opposition and/or Request to Continue

Hearing Date. ECF No. 187. The parties subsequently filed a Notice of Errata re: Joint 

Stipulation of Settlement and Release correcting an error identified in this Conditional Opposition. 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ECF Nos. 188, 191, 192. The Court denied the request to continue the hearing date on October 

28, 2014, ECF No. 190, and the motion hearing was held as scheduled on November 13, 2014. 

C. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the settlement of class 

actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). The settlement of 

a certified class action must be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). But, 

where the “parties reach a settlement agreement prior to class certification, courts must peruse the 

proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the 

settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). In these situations, 

settlement approval “requires a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may 

normally be required under Rule 23(e).” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 

2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Preliminary approval of a settlement and 

notice to the proposed class is appropriate if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of 

serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly 

grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the 

range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. 

Cal. 2007) (citation omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has previously found that Willner has satisfied the Rule 23 requirements for 

certification of the putative class for settlement purposes, that “Willner and her counsel will 

adequately protect the interests of the class,” and that Willner’s assertions “support the conclusion 

that the parties were sufficiently informed about the strengths and weaknesses of Willner’s claims 

when negotiating the settlement and that the settlement is non-collusive and likely to benefit the 

class members.” ECF No. 177 at 8–12.

The Court now finds that the amended settlement agreement has corrected the three 

obvious deficiencies identified in its previous order. ECF No. 177 at 12–13. 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 4 of 8
5

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

First, the parties have revised the language of the release to clarify that it applies only to 

claims that “arise out of the allegations in the lawsuit.” ECF No. 184-1, Ex. 1 ¶ 55(a), Ex A. 

Although the original version of the settlement agreement submitted to the Court erroneously 

contained the words “or are related to” at pg. 17, line 19, the parties discovered the mistake and 

submitted a Notice of Errata correcting it. ECF Nos. 188, 191, 192. On November 12, 2014, 

Willner submitted a revised Proposed Order with a corresponding correction to the proposed 

Notice of Class Action Settlement. 2 ECF No. 194. 

Second, the proposed Notice now reflects that there are approximately 20,270 class 

members; identifies the average payment each claimant can expect to receive; identifies the 

amount expected to be paid to the claims administrator; and lists the address and contact 

information of the claims administrator. Id. at 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.

Third, the Settlement Agreement now provides class members with sixty days to opt out or 

object to the settlement. ECF No. 184-1, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 43, 45, Ex A at 3. 

In light of the parties’ amendments to the proposed settlement agreement, the Court 

concludes that the settlement falls “within the range of possible approval,” In re Tableware 

Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079–80, and GRANTS Willner’s motion for provisional 

certification of the settlement class. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. The Court GRANTS the parties’ request for preliminary approval of their class action 

settlement. 

 

2

“Potentially Interested Parties and possible putative class members” Padilla and Guido object 

that the parties did not strictly comply with the Court’s recommendation because they have used 

the phrase “arise out of the allegations in the Lawsuit” rather than “arise out of the allegations in 

the operative complaint,” ECF No. 187 at 3, but Willner explains that the settlement defines 

“lawsuit” to mean “the alleged class and representative action suit pleaded in the Fifth Amended 

Complaint,” ECF No. 189 at 2. The Court has considered the objections raised by Padilla and 

Guido, who object to the breadth of the release because they are concerned about the possible 

“significant overlap” between the putative classes in this action and another action involving 

Manpower, ECF 187 at 5, but concludes that the parties have corrected the deficiency identified in 

the September 3, 2014 Order. To the extent that Padilla and Guido are members of the settlement 

class certified by this Order, they may object to the terms of the settlement agreement as class 

members, as provided below. 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 5 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. The Court GRANTS the parties’ request for certification of the following Rule 23 

settlement class for the sole and limited purpose of implementing the terms of their amended 

settlement agreement, subject to this Court’s final approval:

All persons who were or are employed by Manpower Inc. in 

California as temporary employees at any time from March 17, 2010 

through January 20, 2012 and who received their wage statements 

(i.e. paystub) by U.S. mail, payment card or electronic submission, 

except individuals who were or are at the same time jointly 

employed by a franchisee of Manpower Inc., including but not 

limited to, franchisee CLMP LTD., dba Manpower of Temecula. 

Certification under this Order is for settlement purposes only, and shall not constitute or be 

construed as an admission by Defendant that this action is appropriate for class treatment for 

litigation purposes. Entry of this Order is without prejudice to the rights of Defendant to oppose 

certification of a class in this action should the proposed settlement not be granted final approval.

3. The Court APPOINTS Plaintiff’s Counsel, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho and 

Jackson Hanson, LLP as Lead Counsel and Class Counsel, and Plaintiff Vera Willner as Class 

Representative. 

4. The Court preliminarily APPROVES the form and content of the Amended Settlement 

Agreement (corrected as discussed above), and the proposed Class Notice (corrected as discussed 

above) and Claim Form, which are attached to this Order as Exhibits 1, A, and B. The parties are 

authorized to make non-substantive changes to the proposed Class Notice and Claim Form that are 

consistent with the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement and this Order. 

5. The Court further APPROVES the selection of Simpluris as the Claims Administrator, 

and the payment of reasonable administration costs, estimated at $104,326.74, to be paid from the 

Maximum Settlement Amount. The Claims Administrator shall take all other actions in 

furtherance of obtaining correct mail address information for settlement class members and giving 

of notice, determination of settlement class member payment amounts, receiving and processing 

class member challenges, opt-outs, and objections, and other claims administration functions, as 

are specified in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.

6. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court hereby APPROVES the proposed Class 

Notice (corrected as discussed above) and adopts the following dates and deadlines:

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Deadline Action 

Ten (10) calendar days after the Court 

issues the Preliminary Approval Order

Defendant shall provide to the Settlement Administrator 

in electronic form, a list of each Class Member, including 

each person’s name, last known address, phone number, 

social security number, and number of received paystubs 

during the class period. 

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the 

receipt of Class information

Settlement Administrator will send via United States first 

class mail the Notice of Settlement and Claim Form to 

the Class Members.

Within ten (10) calendar days from 

return date of undeliverable Settlement 

Documents

Settlement Administrator shall re-mail the Settlement 

Documents. 

Prior to thirty (30) calendar days after 

the initial mailing of the Notice 

Class Counsel shall file a motion seeking approval of 

attorneys’ fees and costs and the proposed Service 

Payment to the Class Representative.

Within thirty (30) calendar days 

following Settlement Administrator’s 

initial mailing of the notice 

Settlement Administrator shall mail reminder postcards to 

all settlement class members who have not responded.

Within sixty (60) calendar days from 

the date of the initial mailing of the 

Settlement Documents

Opt-Out Request Deadline. 

Class Members must timely submit a signed and dated 

written request to be excluded from the Settlement to the 

Claims Administrator. Must be postmarked on or before 

deadline.

Within sixty (60) calendar days from 

the date of the initial mailing of the 

Settlement Documents 

Deadline to file and serve a written objection and a notice 

of intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing.

Within sixty (60) calendar days from 

the initial mailing of the Settlement 

Documents

Claims Period Deadline. 

Class Member must submit to the Claims Administrator a 

postmarked, executed Claim Form.

7. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5), members of the settlement class 

may object to the terms of the settlement. Settlement class members who object to the proposed 

settlement may appear and present such objections at the Final Approval Hearing in person or by 

counsel, provided that any objecting settlement class member submit a written statement 

containing the basis of that person’s objections, together with a notice of the intention to appear, if 

appropriate, which must be sent to the Claims Administrator and postmarked no later than sixty 

(60) calendar days from the date on which the Notices are first sent out by the Claims 

Administrator. No person shall be heard at the Final Approval Hearing, and no briefs or papers 

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

shall be received or considered, unless the foregoing documents have been filed and served as 

provided in this Order, except as this Court may permit for good cause shown. Settlement class 

members shall be permitted to withdraw their objections in writing by submitting a withdrawal 

statement to the Settlement Administrator prior to the Court’s final approval hearing.

8. Class Counsel shall file a motion for approval of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

litigation expenses and a motion for approval of service award for Plaintiff Willner before the end 

of the time within which settlement class members may object to or opt out of the settlement. 

9. Counsel shall return before this Court for a Final Approval Hearing, at which the Court 

shall finally determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, on June 18, 2015, 

at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9 of this Court. 

10. Class Counsel shall file a noticed motion for final approval of settlement no later than 

thirty-five (35) days before the Final Approval Hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02846-JST Document 196 Filed 01/02/15 Page 8 of 8