Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00574-14/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MERCEDES ALVAREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00574-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND 

CERTIFYING CLASS AND

COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR 

SETTLEMENT PURPOSES

Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action 

Settlement on September 2, 2016, and the Court heard the matter on September 14, 2016. The 

Court, having considered the papers and arguments in support of the motion, ORDERS THE 

FOLLOWING:

Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class

1. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes 

only: Liability Claims Representatives who performed work for Farmers Insurance 

Exchange in California at any time from February 6, 2010 through August 30, 2016; Auto 

Physical Damage Claims Representatives who performed work for Farmers Insurance 

Exchange in California at any time from February 6, 2010 through August 30, 2016 and 

who were hired on or before October 15, 2014; and Auto Physical Damage Claims 

Representatives who performed work for Farmers Insurance Exchange in California at any 

time from February 6, 2010 through August 30, 2016 and who were hired after October 15, 

2014 (except with respect to unpaid wages and overtime claims); and all current and 

former Liability Claims Representatives, Auto Physical Damage Claims Representatives, 

and Residential Property Claims Representatives who performed work in California at any 

Case 3:14-cv-00574-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 5
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

time from September 19, 2011, through August 30, 2016, who timely consented to join the 

conditionally certified collective action, and who have not withdrawn their consent to join 

the conditionally certified collective action or had their consent struck by the Court.

2. In preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class defined above, the Court finds and 

concludes that under the relevant standard for certifying a class for settlement purposes:

a. The Settlement Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder would be impractical.

b. The members of the Settlement Class share common questions of law and fact.

c. Because certification of the Settlement Class is proposed in the context of a 

settlement, the Court need not inquire whether the case, if tried as a class action, 

would present intractable management problems. 

d. The Court appoints Mercedes Alvarez, Alfonzo Edwards, Todd Gonsalves, Jeffrey 

Holloway, Brian Leigh, Brandi Lopez, Cedric Martin, Matt Ohlson, and Krysta 

Ramos as Settlement Class representatives. The Court finds and concludes that for 

the purposes of certifying a settlement class, there is a commonality of interest 

between the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Settlement Class; and that 

the Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of absent members of the 

Settlement Class.

e. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs’ law 

firms of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP and the Markham Law Firm have 

extensive experience in litigating complex employment class and collective actions. 

Because these law firms meet all of the standards set forth in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), 

these law firms are hereby appointed settlement Class Counsel.

f. The Court hereby preliminarily certifies, for purposes of settlement only, the 

proposed Settlement Class, as defined herein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 

If final approval of the settlement is not granted for any reason, the Parties retain all 

rights and arguments as to whether the claims in this case are appropriate for class 

certification. Nothing in this Order indicates whether the Court believes that class 

certification is appropriate if this case continued to be litigated.

Case 3:14-cv-00574-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Preliminary Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement

3. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement filed by the Parties. The Settlement appears to have been the product of 

serious, informed, and extensive arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties and is 

within the range of possible final approval – that is, it appears at this stage to be fair, 

adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class.

4. The Court specifically finds that the parties had a bona fide dispute regarding the 

payment of overtime wages and that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable 

with respect to the settlement of the Opt-in Plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) claims, as the settlement of the FLSA claims also appears to have been the 

product of serious, informed, and extensive arm’s-length negotiations between the 

Parties and is within the range of possible final approval. The Court accordingly 

approves the FLSA release for all members of FLSA Settlement Subclass who do not 

withdraw their consent to join form, as the release is set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement.

Approval of Notice and Notice Plan

5. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Class Action Settlement in 

substantially the form attached as Exhibit A to the Parties’ Stipulation re: Revised 

Notice of Class and Collective Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 175-1).

6. The Court approves the procedures for Class Members to participate in, to opt out of, 

and to object to the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Notice, 

with the agreed modification that Class Members shall have 45 days from the mailing 

of notice to file any objections, exclusion requests, or requests to withdraw previously 

filed consent to join forms.

7. The Court directs the distribution of the Notice by first-class mail to the Class 

Members in accordance with the implementation schedule set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement and described below. The Court finds the content and process for 

providing notice to the Classes as set forth in the Settlement Agreement fulfills the 

Case 3:14-cv-00574-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 5
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

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(A) and due process, provides 

the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and 

sufficient notice to all Class Members.

8. The Court appoints Dahl Administration as the Claims Administrator subject to the 

terms and conditions of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, and it shall perform all 

duties and responsibilities of the Claims Administrator as set forth in that Agreement.

Final Approval Hearing

9. The Court hereby sets a hearing (“Final Approval Hearing”) to take place on January 

11, 2017, at 2:00 pm, in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, 

California. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider: whether to give 

final approval to the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement 

Class; whether to enter final judgment in this case; whether to approve the service

awards as set forth in the Settlement Agreement; whether to award attorneys’ fees and 

costs to Class Counsel, and if so, in what amount; and any other matters as the Court 

should deem necessary. 

Implementation Schedule

Deadline for Defendant to provide Claims 

Administrator with Class Member Data

15 calendar days after Order 

Granting Preliminary 

Approval

Deadline for Claims Administrator to Mail the 

Notice to Class Members and establish Settlement 

Website

30 calendar days after Order 

Granting Preliminary 

Approval

Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Requests 

for Exclusion

45 calendar days after 

mailing of the Notice

Deadline to Postmark Any Objections to Settlement 45 calendar days after 

mailing of the Notice

Deadline for FLSA Settlement Subclass Members to 

Withdraw Consent to Join Forms

45 calendar days after 

mailing of the Notice

Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final 

Approval of Settlement

30 calendar days before Final 

Approval Hearing

Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion For 

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

25 calendar days after 

mailing of the Notice

Case 3:14-cv-00574-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Deadline to Postmark Any Objections to Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

45 calendar days after 

mailing of the Notice

Final Approval Hearing The soonest available date 

that is more than 110

calendar days after Order 

Granting Preliminary 

Approval

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00574-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/21/16 Page 5 of 5