Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05921/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05921-6/pdf.json

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

---

[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

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

& 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pam Rolita Bean 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAM ROLITA BEAN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HUGO BOSS RETAIL, INC., and DOES 

1-50, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

AS MODIFIED BY COURT 

Hearing Date: December 10, 2015 

Hearing Time: 1:30 PM 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor 

Hon. Richard Seeborg

RANDALL B. AIMAN-SMITH #124599 

REED W.L. MARCY #191531 

HALLIE VON ROCK #233152 

CAREY A. JAMES #269270 

aiman-smith marcy 

 7677 oakport street suite 1150 

 oakland california 94621 

 t:510.562.6800 f:510.562.6830 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 1 

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

The matter of the Court’s Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the 

above-referenced matter came on regularly for hearing on December 10, 2015, at 1:30 PM (or 

as soon thereafter as could be heard) in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, of the United States District 

Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 

Hon. Richard Seeborg presiding. 

Plaintiff was represented by her counsel, Hallie Von Rock, of Aiman-Smith & Marcy, 

PC. Defendant Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Hugo Boss”) was represented by its 

counsel, Elisa Nadeau, of Littler Mendelson, PC. 

Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to the 

Settlement Class and a hearing, to settle this Action upon the terms and conditions set forth in 

the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”), which is attached as Exhibit A to the 

Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, entered on August 5, 2015 

(ECF #33). 

In support of her Motion for Final Approval, Plaintiff has submitted a Notice of Motion 

and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, a Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities, declaration of counsel, declaration of the class representative, declaration of the 

claims administrator, a separate motion for an award for attorney’s fees, costs, and claims 

administration costs, and this Proposed Order. 

The Court has (1) reviewed and considered the terms and conditions of the proposed 

Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (2) reviewed and considered the 

application of Class Counsel for an award of attorney fees, costs, expenses, and a classrepresentative incentive award; (3) held a Final Approval Hearing after being satisfied that 

notice to the Settlement Class has been provided in accordance with the Court’s Order 

Granting Preliminary Approval to Proposed Class Settlement entered on August 5, 2015 (the 

“Preliminary Approval Order”); (4) taken into account the presentations and other proceedings 

at the Final Approval Hearing; and (5) considered the Settlement in the context of all prior 

proceedings had in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court enters the following FINDINGS and 

CONCLUSIONS: 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

A. Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not otherwise defined herein shall 

have the meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement. 

B. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this Lawsuit and all acts within 

this Lawsuit, and over all the parties to this Lawsuit, including all members of the Settlement 

Class. 

C. The Settlement Class conditionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order 

has been appropriately certified for settlement purposes. Class Counsel and the Class 

Representative have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of 

entering into and implementing the Settlement. 

D. The notice to putative Settlement Class Members was comprised of individual 

mailed notice to all known Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that this notice (i) 

constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, (ii) constituted notice that was 

reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the putative Settlement Class 

Members of the pendency of the Lawsuit, and of their right to object and to appear at the Final 

Approval Hearing or to exclude themselves from the Settlement, (iii) was reasonable and 

constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to be provided with 

notice, and (iv) fully complied with due process principles and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23. 

E. The Court has held a Final Approval Hearing to consider the fairness, 

reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and has been advised that there have been no 

objections to the Settlement. 

F. The Settlement is the product of good faith, arm’s-length negotiations between 

the Class Representative and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and Defendant and its counsel, 

on the other hand. 

G. The Settlement, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects 

fair, reasonable, adequate, and proper, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. In 

reaching this conclusion, the Court considered a number of factors, including: (1) the strength 

of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

litigation; (3) the amount offered in settlement; (4) the extent of discovery completed and the 

stage of the proceedings; (5) the experience and views of counsel; and (6) the reaction of the 

class members to the proposed settlement. See, Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (quoting, Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

H. The two putative Settlement Class Members who have timely elected to opt out 

of the Settlement and the Settlement Class, and who are therefore not bound by the Settlement, 

the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, this Order and the Final Judgment to be entered by 

the Clerk of the Court hereon, are identified to the Court in the Declaration of Christina 

Francisco, filed in advance of the Final Approval Hearing. All Settlement Class Members (as 

permanently certified below) shall be subject to all of the provisions of the Settlement, the 

Settlement Agreement, this Order, and Final Judgment to be entered by the Clerk of the Court. 

On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, as well as the submissions and 

proceedings referred to above, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 

Certification of Class and Approval of Settlement 

1. The Settlement and the Settlement Agreement are hereby approved as fair, 

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and the requirements of 

due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied. The parties are 

ordered and directed to comply with the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 

2. The Court having found that each of the elements of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, for purposes of settlement only, the Settlement 

Class is permanently certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of the 

following persons: 

All current and former non-exempt hourly employees employed by Defendant 

Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. (“HB” or “Defendant”) at a “Hugo Boss” retail store 

within the State of California at any time from October 2, 2009 through 

August 5, 2015 (the date of preliminary approval) 

The two putative Settlement Class Members identified to the Court as having timely and 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

properly elected to opt out from the Settlement and the Settlement Class are hereby excluded 

from the Settlement Class and shall not be entitled to any of the benefits afforded to the 

Settlement Class Members under the Settlement Agreement. The Court readopts and 

incorporates herein by reference its preliminary conclusions as to the satisfaction of Rules 

23(a) and (b)(3) set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and notes again that because this 

certification of the Class is in connection with the Settlement rather than litigation, the Court 

need not address any issues of manageability that may be presented by certification of the class 

proposed in the Settlement. 

3. For purposes of Settlement only, the Named Plaintiff, Pam Rolita Bean, is 

certified as a representative of the Settlement Class and Class Counsel, Aiman-Smith & Marcy, 

PC, is appointed counsel to the Settlement Class. The Court concludes that Class Counsel and 

the Class Representative have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class with 

respect to the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement. 

4. Notwithstanding the certification of the foregoing Settlement Class and 

appointment of the Class Representative for purposes of effecting the Settlement, if this Order 

is reversed on appeal or the Settlement Agreement is terminated or is not consummated for any 

reason, the foregoing certification of the Settlement Class and appointment of the Class 

Representative shall be void and of no further effect, and the parties to the proposed Settlement 

shall be returned to the status each occupied before entry of this Order without prejudice to any 

legal argument that any of the parties to the Settlement Agreement might have asserted but for 

the Settlement Agreement. 

Released Claims 

5. The Settlement will release all claims stated in the operative complaint. The 

Release is set forth as follows, in Paragraph III B of the Settlement Agreement: “As of the 

Effective Date, Class Members release the Released Parties from the Released Claims. Class 

Members agree not to sue or otherwise make a claim against any of the Released Parties for 

any of the Released Claims arising during the Class Period.” 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 5 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

The Released Claims are set forth in the Definitions, Paragraph E, of the Settlement 

Agreement: 

The claims for reimbursement, wages, benefits, and related penalties 

actually alleged in the Action, or those claims for reimbursement, wages, 

benefits and related penalties that could have been alleged in the Action, by 

the Named Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class 

Members, based on the facts stated in the original and the Second Amended 

Complaint, including that (1) Hugo Boss required Putative Class Members 

to purchase Hugo Boss merchandise in violation of Labor Code section 

450; (2) Hugo Boss failed to reimburse Putative Class Members for all 

reasonably incurred business expenses, including purchase of clothing and 

shoes to wear to work, in violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; 

(3) Hugo Boss failed to compensate all hours worked by Putative Class 

Members, by Putative Class Members, including but not limited to time 

allegedly spent cleaning the store and performing other off the clock 

opening and closing store duties and time spent undergoing security bag 

checks, including minimum wages and overtime hours, which the Named 

Plaintiff alleges violated the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission 

Wage Order and Labor Code sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; (4) 

Hugo Boss failed to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code 

sections 226.7 and 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission 

Wage Order; (5) Hugo Boss failed to provide rest breaks in violation of 

Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable Industrial Welfare 

Commission Wage Order; (6) Hugo Boss failed to timely pay all final 

wages due upon cessation of employment, which the Named Plaintiff 

alleges violated Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; (7) Hugo Boss 

failed to keep accurate and complete payroll records in violation of Labor 

Code section 1174(d); (8) Hugo Boss engaged in unlawful business 

practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et 

seq.; (9) Putative Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief to halt any 

practices alleged in the original and amended complaints that are unlawful; 

(10) Putative Class Members are entitled to restitutionary damages under 

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (11) Hugo Boss is liable for 

penalties under the Private Attorneys’ General Act, Labor Code §§ 2699, et 

seq.; (12) Hugo Boss is liable for the attorneys’ fees incurred to prosecute 

this action on behalf of Putative Class Members, including fees incurred for 

the services of Class Counsel; and (13) Hugo Boss is liable for any other 

remedies, penalties and interest under Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 212, 

218.5, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 450, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 

2699, 2802, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 

Order. 

/// 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 6 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

6. With respect to the Released Claims, an irrevocable and unconditional release is 

given by the Named Plaintiff, Pam Rolita Bean, of the Released Parties from any and all 

charges, complaints, claims, causes of action, debts, sums of money, controversies, 

agreements, promises, damages and liabilities of any kind or nature whatsoever, both at law 

and equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising from conduct occurring on 

or before the date the Named Plaintiff signed the Settlement Agreement. This release is 

intended by the Parties to be all encompassing and to act as a full and total release of any 

claim, whether specifically enumerated herein or not, that the Named Plaintiff might have or 

have had, that exists or ever has existed on or to the date of the Settlement Agreement is 

signed. The words “claim” or “claims” includes without limitation all actions, claims and 

grievances, whether actual or potential, known or unknown, related, incidental to or arising out 

of any act or omission committed or omitted by the Released Parties through the date that the 

Named Plaintiff signed the Settlement Agreement and/or arising out of the Named Plaintiff’s 

employment relationship with Hugo Boss and/or the cessation thereof. The release by the 

Named Plaintiff includes an express waiver, to the fullest extent permitted by law, of the 

provisions, rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, or any other 

similar provision under federal or state law, which Section provides: 

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect 

to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her 

must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. 

The general release will also include a waiver by the Named Plaintiff of any right to 

future employment with the Released Parties. 

Applications for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses and 

Named Representative Plaintiff Incentive Award 

7. The Court has reviewed the Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, Costs, and 

Claims Administration Costs submitted by Class Counsel and the exhibits, memoranda of law, 

and other materials submitted in support of that application. The Court has also reviewed the 

request, in the Motion for Final Approval and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 7 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

Authorities, and declarations submitted in support thereof, for the Named Representative 

Plaintiff Incentive Award. The Court recognizes that Defendant has not opposed the 

application for an incentive award of $10,000 to the Named Representative Plaintiff, to be paid 

by Defendant; an award of attorney fees of up to $112,500 and litigation costs of $26,494, to 

be paid by Defendant; and an award of claims administration costs of $12,367, to be paid by 

Defendant. Further, no Settlement Class Member has objected to any of these sums or other 

terms of the settlement. Such expenses, in the amounts actually awarded below, are to be 

deducted from the Total Settlement Fund of $337,500. On the basis of its review of the 

foregoing, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for attorney fees at one third of the 

settlement fund is fair, reasonable, and appropriate, with the proviso that the calculation should 

be based on the net settlement fund, after deducting counsel’s litigation costs and the Claims 

Administration costs. Attorney fees in excess of the 25% “benchmark” are warranted under all 

the circumstances, including the relative dollar amounts involved, the degree of success, and 

consideration of the “lodestar cross-check.” Accordingly, the Court hereby awards attorney 

fees of $99,745, and litigation costs of $26,494, to Class Counsel; an incentive award to the 

Named Representative Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.00; and Claims Administration costs 

in the amount of $12,367, to be paid by Defendant in accordance with the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

8. The Court orders that ten percent (10%) of the amount awarded as attorney fees 

be retained by the Settlement Administrator, to be paid out to Class Counsel when the check 

distribution process is complete and the claims administrator has submitted a final report to the 

Court. 

Other Provisions 

9. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor any provision therein, nor any 

negotiations, statements or proceedings in connection therewith shall be construed as, or be 

deemed to be evidence of, an admission or concession on the part of the Plaintiff, any 

Settlement Class Member, Defendant, or any other person of any liability or wrongdoing by 

them, or that the claims and defenses that have been, or could have been, asserted in the 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 8 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

Lawsuit are or are not meritorious, and this Order, the Settlement Agreement or any such 

communications shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding, or be 

used in any way as an admission or concession or evidence of any liability or wrongdoing of 

any nature or that Plaintiffs, any Settlement Class Member, or any other person has suffered 

any damage; provided, however, that the Settlement Agreement, this Order, and the Final 

Judgment to be entered thereon may be filed in any action by Defendant or Settlement Class 

Members seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement or the Final Judgment by injunctive or 

other relief, or to assert defenses including, but not limited to, res judicata, collateral estoppel, 

release, good faith settlement, or any theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar 

defense or counterclaim. The Settlement Agreement’s terms shall be forever binding on, and 

shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other 

proceedings as to Released Claims and other prohibitions set forth in this Order that are 

maintained by, or on behalf of, the Settlement Class Members or any other person subject to 

the provisions of this Order. 

10. In the event that the Settlement Agreement does not become effective or is 

canceled or terminated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement, then this Order and the Final Judgment shall be rendered null and void and be 

vacated and all orders entered in connection therewith by this Court shall be rendered null and 

void. 

Dismissal; Continuing Jurisdiction 

11. This action and the claims alleged therein are hereby ordered dismissed with 

prejudice. 

12. Without in any way affecting the finality of this Order and the Final Judgment, 

this Court hereby retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating to (a) the interpretation, 

administration, and consummation of the Settlement Agreement and (b) the enforcement of the 

injunctions described in paragraph 6 of this Order. 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 9 of 10
[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

Bean, et al. v. HUGO BOSS Retail, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:13-CV-05921-RS 

Page 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 12/10/15 

 The Honorable Richard Seeborg 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-05921-RS Document 38 Filed 12/10/15 Page 10 of 10