Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00430/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00430-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

THOMAS ROSENBURG et al., on behalf of 

themselves and classes of those similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Case No. CV 06-00430 PJH 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) 

CONFIRMING FINAL 

CERTIFICATION OF CLASSES AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION; AND 

(2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

The parties to this action having entered into a Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 

2006 and having applied to this Court for preliminary and final approval of the Settlement 

Agreement and the terms thereof; this Court on January 11, 2007 having granted preliminary 

approval to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Court’s January 11, 

2007 order, and having directed notice of the Settlement Agreement, its terms, and the applicable 

procedures and schedules to be provided to proposed class and collective action members; this 

Court having set a final Fairness Hearing for July 11, 2007 to determine whether the Settlement 

Agreement should be granted final approval, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), 

as “fair, adequate and reasonable;” and all proposed class and collective action members having 

been given an opportunity to comment on the settlement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, upon consideration of the Settlement 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 2 

Agreement, the parties’ briefs, declarations, and oral arguments in support thereof, and the 

proceedings in this action to date, as follows: 

1. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Court for purposes of this Order adopts all 

defined terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the January 11, 2007 

order granting preliminary approval; 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all matters 

relating thereto, and over the plaintiffs and the defendant. 

3. This Court confirms as final its conditional certification of the Class, the California 

Subclass, the Kentucky Subclass, and the New York Subclass, as defined in the Settlement 

Agreement and in Section II of its January 11, 2007 order, for purposes of settlement and based 

on the findings in Section IV of its January 11, 2007 order and the absence of any objections from 

any Class Members to such certification. 

4. The Court confirms as final its preliminary designation, in Section III of its January 11, 

2007 order, of the Class as an FLSA collective action, for purposes of settlement and based on its 

findings in Section III of the January 11, 2007 order and the facts that (1) over 11,000 Class 

Members have now opted into the FLSA collective action, and (2) no Class Member has objected 

to the designation of the case as a collective action. 

5. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Thomas Rosenburg, James Baxter, 

Robert Carlo, Alan Erece, Marcia Howie, Fnu Kennedy, Vincent Letizio, Sherry Mattson, Steve 

Park, Michelle Peel, Denise Rambsel, Exaldo Topacio, Laurence Tosi III, Robin Daniels, 

Rebecca Taylor, and Frank Vasterling (“Plaintiffs”) as class representatives of the Class, both 

under Rule 23 and under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Court confirms as final the appointment of 

Thomas Rosenburg and Alan Erece as class representatives of the California Subclass. The Court 

confirms as final the appointment of Frank Vasterling as class representative of the Kentucky 

Subclass. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Exaldo Topacio as class representative 

of the New York Subclass. 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 3 

6. The Court confirms as final the appointment of the following law firms and attorneys 

as class counsel (“Class Counsel”) for the Class and Subclasses: James M. Finberg and Eve H. 

Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Kelly M. Dermody, Rachel Geman and Jahan C. Sagafi of 

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Steven G. Zieff, David Lowe, and Kenneth J. 

Sugarman of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP; Todd F. Jackson, Claire Kennedy-Wilkins, and 

Lindsay Nako of Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.; Adam T. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, 

and Piper Hoffman of Outten & Golden, LLP; Ira Spiro and Gregory N. Karasik of Spiro Moss 

Barness LLP; J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP; Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC; 

and David Borgen and Roberta Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen and Dardarian. 

7. If, for any reason, the Settlement Agreement ultimately does not become Effective, this 

order certifying the Class and Subclasses under Rule 23 and the Class under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

shall be vacated; the parties shall return to their respective positions in this lawsuit as those 

positions existed immediately before the parties executed the Settlement Agreement; and nothing 

stated in the Settlement Agreement or any other papers filed with this Court in connection with 

the settlement shall be deemed an admission of any kind by any of the parties or used as evidence 

against, or over the objection of, any of the parties for any purpose in this action or in any other 

action. 

8. The Notice, Opt-Out Statement, and Claim Form and Release given to Class Members, 

pursuant to this Court’s orders, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, 

was accomplished in all material respects, and fully met the requirements of Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fair Labor Standards Act, due process, the United States 

Constitution and any other applicable law. 

9. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court grants final 

approval to the Settlement Agreement and the settlement set forth therein. The Court finds that 

the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on all Class 

Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Court’s 

January 11, 2007 order and the Settlement Agreement. A list of Class Members who timely 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 4 

opted out is attached to the Final Judgment as Exhibit A. The Court specifically finds that the 

settlement is rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims given the risk, expense, 

complexity, and duration of further litigation. This Court also finds that the Settlement 

Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the 

interests of the plaintiffs and defendant, after thorough factual and legal investigation. Staton v. 

Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1291 

(9th Cir. 1992). 

10. The Court further finds that the response of the Class to the settlement supports 

settlement approval. Of the approximately 37,000 Class Members, over 11,000 Class Members 

submitted claim forms, but only seven Class Members submitted objections. The Court has 

reviewed and considered the seven objections filed by Class Members, and has also reviewed the 

two objections improperly filed by individuals who also filed opt out statements. None of the 

objections raises concerns that warrant rejecting the settlement. In particular, 1) the Court finds 

that the Settlement Agreement appropriately bases recovery on pay periods worked, rather than 

actual hours worked, in light of the fact that data of hours worked does not exist for all Class 

Members; 2) the Court finds that the absence of injunctive relief does not require disapproval of 

the settlement, since the FLSA does not provide a private right of action for injunctive relief, and 

the release in Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement does not extend beyond the date of Final 

Approval of the settlement; 3) the Court finds that the absence of an admission of liability does 

not require disapproval of the settlement. See, e.g., Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 

230 (S.D.Ill. 2001); Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F.Supp. 537, 554 

(N.D.Ill. 1982); In re California Micro Devices Corp. Securities Litigation, 2001 WL 765146, *2 

(N.D.Cal. 2001); 4) the Court finds that under the Settlement Agreement, IBM will pay the 

employer’s share of appropriate payroll taxes on the back-wages portion of each Class Member’s 

settlement recovery; 5) the Court finds that the covered period is appropriately calculated based 

upon the applicable state or federal statute of limitations; 6) the Court rejects the objections to the 

amount of the fund and the plan of allocation for the reasons set forth herein. 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 5 

11. The Court finds the proposed plan of allocation is rationally related to the relative 

strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and procedures set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement by which payments are to be calculated and made to Class 

Members filing timely claims are fair, reasonable and adequate, and payment shall be made 

according to those allocations and pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement. The Court finds that the reserve set aside for the costs of settlement administration is 

reasonable and is approved. 

12. The Second Amended Complaint filed in this action and all claims contained therein 

are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice as to all Class Members other than those listed in 

Exhibit A to the Final Judgment. 

13. By operation of the entry of this Order and the Final Judgment, all Released Claims 

are fully, finally and forever released, relinquished and discharged, pursuant to the terms of the 

release set forth in Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement, as to all Class Members other than 

those listed in Exhibit A to the Final Judgment. The Court has reviewed the release in Section 4.1 

of the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated as well into the Claim Form, and has 

reviewed the release in Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement and the individual releases 

attached as Exhibit E of the Settlement Agreement, and the Court finds all of these releases to be 

fair, reasonable, and enforceable under the FLSA and all other applicable law. 

14. The Claim Forms and Releases of Arthur Anderson, Elizabeth Briones, Jeanine 

Chaplik, Joseph Evans, Munish Gupta, Christopher Holden, Russell Martin, Michael McKinney, 

Jeffrey Metzger, Dennis Miller, Michael Onofrietto, Deryl Tezap, and Jim Zettlemoyer, which 

were submitted by means other than first class U.S. Mail, but received by the Claims 

Administrator on or before the May 4, 2007 deadline, shall be deemed timely and appropriately 

submitted under the Settlement Agreement, given that good cause exists for accepting these 

documents. 

15. The Claim Forms and Releases of Lester Alford, Steven Baldridge, Jawahar Barua, 

Janet Baugus, Jeffrey Benn, Larry Bishop, Michael Bohr, Prahlada Chinthalapuri, Faisal Faruque, 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 6 

Paul Gervais, Barrie Grozier, Sudheer Guduru, Bernadette Heiser, Bryan Hill, George Hollister, 

Sonia Khosla, Timothy King, Edgar Licis, Heath Matthias, Kevin McDermott, Stacia McFadden, 

Danika Miller, Bernard Newton, Heena Patel, Diomedes Perez, P Marie Rapp-Fuller, Anthony 

Sangiorgi, Anand Satyadev, William Schilhab, Stephen Thomas, Gerald Urling, Eleanor 

Volynsky, Timothy Watson, Anthony Wilcox, and James Yurko, which were received by the 

Claims Administrator on or before the May 4, 2007 deadline, but were incomplete, shall be 

deemed timely, given that good cause exists for accepting these documents, but these documents 

will be accepted only to the extent that the Claims Administrator received fully completed 

documents and information on or before June 21, 2007 and thus sufficiently timely so as not to 

delay the process of settlement approval or calculating or distributing settlement payments. 

16. The Claim Forms and Releases filed by representatives of deceased Class Members 

Janis Babyak, Paul Lazarus, Daniel Larson, Christophe McGarry and David Pendley, which were 

received by the Claims Administrator on or before the May 4, 2007 deadline, but which required 

additional information in order to enable the Claims Administrator to assess eligibility for 

settlement payments, shall be deemed timely and appropriately submitted, given that good cause 

exists for accepting these documents, but these documents will be accepted only to the extent that 

the Claims Administrator received the required additional information on or before June 21, 2007 

and thus sufficiently timely so as not to delay the process of settlement approval or calculating or 

distributing settlement payments. 

17. The Claim Forms and Releases of David Gallagher and Danny Zorrilla , which were 

not received by the May 4, 2007 deadline, shall be deemed timely, given that within such time as 

not to delay the process of seeking final approval of the settlement or calculating or distributing 

settlement proceeds, these individuals submitted their Claim Forms and Releases, along with 

written explanations that they were unable to submit a claim form by the May 4, 2007 deadline 

because they were deployed in the military during the claims period. Under these circumstances, 

the Court finds good cause for deeming these Claim Forms and Releases timely submitted. 

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 6 of 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 

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER (1) CERT. SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION; (2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETT.; Case No. 06-0430 PJH 

 7 

18. The Claim Forms and Releases of Ansuya Patel, John Stouffer and Paul Costanza, 

which were not received by the May 4, 2007 deadline, shall be deemed timely, given that within 

such time as not to delay the process of seeking final approval of the settlement or calculating or 

distributing settlement proceeds, these individuals submitted their Claim Forms and Releases, 

along with a written explanation that due to no fault of their own they received the Notice too late 

to meet the deadline. Under these circumstances, the Court finds good cause for deeming these 

Claim Forms and Releases timely submitted. 

19. The Claim Form and Release of Robert Colburn, which was not received by the 

May 4, 2007 deadline, shall be deemed timely, given that within such time as not to delay the 

process of seeking final approval of the settlement or calculating or distributing settlement 

proceeds, Mr. Colburn submitted his Claim Forms and Releases, along with a written explanation 

that he was unable to submit a claim form by the May 4, 2007 deadline because he had a 

motorcycle accident and suffered serious and lasting injuries on February 27, 2007 (four days 

after the Class Notice was sent to Class Members). Under these circumstances, the Court finds 

good cause for deeming this Claim Form and Release timely submitted. 

20. The parties entered into the Settlement Agreement solely for the purpose of 

compromising and settling disputed claims. Defendant in no way admits any violation of law or 

any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses, individually or collectively, all 

such liability being expressly denied by Defendant. 

21. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of resolving issues relating 

to administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ___________________ _____________________________________ 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

United States District Judge 

7/12/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:06-cv-00430-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/12/07 Page 7 of 7