Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07039/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07039-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

HECTOR IBANEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

XPO LAST MILE INC.,

Defendant.

Case Nos. 16-cv-07039-WHO

 17-cv-04009 -WHO

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL

Re: Dkt. No. 89

The Parties have jointly applied to this Court for an order preliminarily approving the 

settlement of the Action in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement 

(“Agreement”) and the exhibits thereto setting forth the terms and conditions for a proposed 

settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice upon the terms and conditions set forth. 

Having read and considered the Stipulation and the exhibits annexed thereto, and having held 

argument on the motion for preliminary approval on September 4, 2019:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement, and all terms defined 

therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set forth in the Agreement.

2. The Court grants preliminary approval to the settlement. The Court preliminarily finds that 

the Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and preliminarily approves the terms of the 

Agreement.

3. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff, the Settlement Class Members, and Defendants stipulate 

and agree to certification of a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. This stipulation 

will not be deemed admissible in this or any other proceeding should this Agreement not 

become final. For settlement purposes only, the Court conditionally certifies the following 

Settlement Class: “all individuals who did not contract with XPO LM, and (1) are “Drivers” 

that performed delivery services within the state of California during the Class Period for a 

Carrier, or (2) are “Helpers” with a California address and were/are associated with any 

Carrier that performed services within the state of California during the Class Period. (This 

Settlement Class expressly excludes those drivers and helpers who delivered goods that were 

Case 3:16-cv-07039-WHO Document 95 Filed 09/06/19 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

tendered to them at the Macy’s warehouse located at 1200 Whipple Road, Union City, CA 

94587.)”

4. Plaintiff Hector Ibanez is hereby appointed and designated, for all purposes, as the 

representative of the Settlement Class. 

5. The following attorneys are hereby appointed and designated as Class Counsel:

David Mara

Jamie Serb

MARA LAW FIRM, PC

2650 Camino Del Rio North

Suite 205

San Diego, CA 92108

Telephone: 619-234-2833

Matthew Bainer

THE BAINER LAW FIRM

1901 Harrison Street

Suite 1100

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: 510-922-1802

6. Class Counsel is authorized to act on behalf of Settlement Class Members with respect to all 

acts or consents required by, or which may be given pursuant to, the Agreement, and such 

other acts reasonably necessary to consummate the Agreement. Any Settlement Class 

Member may enter an appearance through counsel of his or her own choosing and expense. 

Any Settlement Class Member who does not enter an appearance or appear on his or her 

own will be represented by Class Counsel.

7. The Court hereby approves on a preliminary basis the Agreement and settlement contained 

therein, including the definition and disposition of the Gross Settlement Amount and related 

matters provided for in the Agreement. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that 

the settlement amount and terms are fair, adequate, and reasonable as to all potential 

Settlement Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation 

relating to liability and damage issues. It further appears that adequate investigation and 

research have been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to 

reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It further appears to the Court that settlement 

at this time will avoid substantial additional costs by all Parties, as well as avoid the delay 

and risks that would be presented by further prosecution of the Action. It further appears that 

the Agreement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive, arm’slength negotiations.

8. A hearing (the “Final Approval Hearing”) shall be held before this Court on January 15, 

Case 3:16-cv-07039-WHO Document 95 Filed 09/06/19 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

2020, at 2:00 p.m. at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, to determine all necessary 

matters concerning the Agreement, including: whether the proposed settlement of the Action 

on the terms and conditions provided for in the Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable 

and should be finally approved by the Court; whether a Judgment should be entered herein; 

whether the plan of allocation contained in the Agreement should be approved as fair, 

adequate and reasonable to the Settlement Class Members; and to finally approve Class 

Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, the Plaintiff’s service award/general release payment, 

the LWDA’s portion of the PAGA Payment, and the settlement administration expenses. 

The Final Approval Hearing may be continued without further notice to Settlement Class 

Members. The Parties shall file a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement on 

or before December 11, 2019.

9. Although the Agreement specifies an Attorney Fee Award in an amount not to exceed 33 

1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount, Class Counsel stated their intention to request only 

25% of the Gross Settlement Amount ($1,375,000.00). The Court will determine approval 

of the requested attorney’s fees at the Final Approval Hearing. The Agreement also specifies 

a Cost Award not to exceed $100,000.00, a Service Award/General Release Payment not to 

exceed $10,000.00 to Plaintiff, Administration Costs to the settlement administrator 

estimated not to exceed $75,000.00, and $412,500.00 to the Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency for its 75% share of the $550,000.00 PAGA Payment. The Court will 

determine approval of the requested amounts set forth above at the Final Approval Hearing. 

If the Court decides to award less than the amounts set forth above, then the unawarded 

amounts will become part of the Net Settlement Amount, distributable to Participating 

Settlement Class Members.

10. The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the Class Notices annexed as Exhibit A

to the Agreement, except that the Notices shall be modified to provide that objections should 

(not must) be in writing, should (not must) provide specific information, the text “If you file 

a timely written objection, postmarked no later than [the Response Deadline]” should be 

stricken, and the text “Any objection must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Case 3:16-cv-07039-WHO Document 95 Filed 09/06/19 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

Rule 23(e)(5)” should be stricken. The Court finds that the distribution of the Class Notice 

substantially in the manner and form set forth in the Agreement and this Order meets the 

requirements of due process, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall 

constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto.

11. The Court hereby appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator and hereby 

directs the Settlement Administrator to mail or cause to be mailed to Settlement Class 

Members the Class Notice by first class mail within twenty-one (21) days after entry of this 

Order, using the procedures set forth in the Agreement. Settlement Class Members will 

automatically receive their settlement payments. The Response Deadline is 60 days after the 

Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice.

12. Class Counsel shall file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees twenty-one (21) days before the 

expiration of the Class Notice period.

13. Any Settlement Class Member may choose to opt out of and be excluded from the Settlement 

Class by following the instructions for requesting exclusion from the Settlement Class that 

are set forth in the Class Notice. All requests for exclusion must be submitted as provided in 

the Class Notice. Any such person who chooses to opt out of and be excluded from the 

Settlement Class will not be entitled to any recovery under the Agreement and will not be 

bound by the Agreement or have any right to object, appeal, or comment thereon. Any 

written request to opt out must be signed by each such person opting out. Settlement Class 

Members who have not requested exclusion shall be bound by all determinations of the 

Court, the Agreement, and Judgment.

14. Any Settlement Class Member may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and may object or 

express his or her views regarding the settlement, and may present evidence and file briefs 

or other papers, that may be proper and relevant to the issues to be heard and determined by 

the Court as provided in the Notice. Objections, generally, should be filed with the Clerk of 

this Court on or before sixty (60) days after the Notice mailing. 

15. All Settlement Administrator costs shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount.

16. The Agreement is not a concession or admission and shall not be used against Defendants 

or any of the Released Parties as an admission or indication with respect to any claim of any 

Case 3:16-cv-07039-WHO Document 95 Filed 09/06/19 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

fault or omission by Defendants or any of the Released Parties. Whether or not the settlement

is finally approved, neither the Agreement, nor any document, statement, proceeding or 

conduct related to the settlement, nor any reports or accounts thereof, shall in any event be:

a. Construed as, offered or admitted in evidence as, received as or deemed to be 

evidence for any purpose adverse to the Released Parties, including, but not limited 

to, evidence of a presumption, concession, indication or admission by Defendants or 

any of the Released Parties of any liability, fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession 

or damage; or

b. Disclosed, referred to, or offered or received in evidence against any of the Released 

Parties in any further proceeding in the Action, or in any other civil, criminal or 

administrative action or proceeding, except for purposes of settling the Action 

pursuant to the Agreement.

17. As of the date this Order is signed, all dates and deadlines associated with the Action shall 

continue to be stayed, other than those related to the administration of the Settlement of the 

Action.

18. In the event the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the terms of the 

Agreement, or the settlement is not finally approved, or is terminated, canceled or fails to 

become effective for any reason, this Order shall be rendered null and void and shall be 

vacated, and the Parties shall revert to their respective positions as of before entering into 

the Agreement.

19. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Final Approval Hearing 

and all dates provided for in the Agreement without further notice to Settlement Class 

Members and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or 

connected with the proposed settlement.

Dated: September 6, 2019 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07039-WHO Document 95 Filed 09/06/19 Page 5 of 5