Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04909/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB

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

San Francisco Division

DARREN STEMPLE and STEFAN 

FLORES, on behalf of themselves and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RINGCENTRAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04909-LB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT

Re: ECF No. 48

INTRODUCTION

This is an overtime-pay case under federal law and counterpart state laws in Colorado and 

North Carolina.1It is a putative collective action under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

and a putative class action for the two state classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.2 The 

plaintiffs claim that their employer, defendant RingCentral, Inc., misclassified them as exempt 

under the FLSA and similar state laws and so failed to pay them requisite compensation.3 The 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Mot. – ECF No 48; Settlement Agreement, Ex. A to Brome Decl. – ECF No. 

48-1 at 7 (¶ 4) . Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

2 Compl. – ECF No. 1.

3

Id. at 2 (¶ 4). 

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of 

the proposed collective- and class-action settlement.

4 The court grants the unopposed5 motion.

STATEMENT

1. The Lawsuit and Settlement Negotiations

On August 13, 2018, named plaintiff Darren Stemple filed this overtime-pay lawsuit as (1) a 

putative FLSA collective action on behalf of a nationwide collective who worked for RingCentral 

as inside sales employees and (2) a putative class action on behalf of a Colorado class under 

Colorado wage-and-hour laws.6 RingCentral answered the complaint on October 3, 2018.7 On 

October 5, 2019, the parties entered into a tolling agreement to protect the FLSA claims for those 

members of the collective who had not yet joined and for unasserted state claims.8 They agreed to 

an early mediation with Tipper Ortman, Esq., who has extensive knowledge of employment law, 

and on January 8, 2019, had a full-day mediation with him and reached a settlement in principle 

that included putative California and North Carolina classes (in addition to the putative Colorado 

class).9 Ultimately the plaintiff was able to add a new named plaintiff only for the putative North 

Carolina class.10

Before mediation, RingCentral provided substantial data regarding class members’ work and 

pay history.11 Class counsel reviewed and analyzed the data reflecting earnings and hours worked 

for the class members and the FLSA opt-ins and created a damages model showing maximum 

damages of $7,583,546.88, assuming 45 hours of work per week, and assuming complete success 

 

4 Mot. – ECF No 48; Settlement Agreement, Ex. A to Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 6–64.

5 Statement of Non-Opposition – ECF No. 52.

6 Compl. – ECF No. 1.

7 Answer – ECF No. 17.

8 Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 2 (¶ 2).

9

Id. (¶¶ 2–3).

10 Id. (¶ 3). 

11 Id. (¶ 4).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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 (1) conditionally certifying the FLSA claims with a 100% participation rate, (2) certifying the 

Colorado and North Carolina classes, (3) establishing liability under the FLSA and both states’

laws, (4) defeating the fluctuating-workweek issue under federal and state laws, (5) establishing a 

willful violation, and (6) recovering liquidated damages.12

After the parties finalized their settlement agreement, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion 

for preliminary approval and will file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for settlement 

purposes only (“in conjunction with settlement approval”) to add the North Carolina class.13

2. Proposed Settlement

2.1 Settlement Classes

The parties agreed to the following class definitions for settlement purposes only:

“Class” or “Class Member(s)” means the members of the following subclasses:

a. “FLSA” class means all individuals who worked for Defendant in a 

Covered Position at any time during the period beginning August 13, 2015 

and ending on March 31, 2019, or the date of Preliminary Approval, 

whichever is earlier. The “Pre-Settlement FLSA Class” means those 

individuals who have already filed consent forms in the Action.

b. “Colorado Class” means all individuals who worked for Defendant in a 

Covered Position in Colorado at any time during the period beginning 

August 13, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2019.

c. “North Carolina Class” means all individuals who worked for Defendant in 

a Covered Position in North Carolina at any time during the period 

beginning October 5, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2019.

Members of the Colorado Class and North Carolina Class are collectively referred 

to as the “Rule 23 Class Members.”14

“Covered Position” is defined as “all inside sales employees, including business development 

representatives, sales development representatives and account representatives, and other positions 

 

12 Id. at 2–3 (¶ 4).

13 Settlement Agreement, Ex. A to Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 8 (¶ 7).

14 Id. at 7 (¶ 4). 

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

with similar job titles and duties.”15 Following the notice process, the FLSA opt-ins and the Rule 

23 Class Members who do not opt out will be the “Participating Class Members.”16

2.2 Settlement Amount and Allocation

The total settlement amount is $2,724,714.75, which includes service awards for the two 

named plaintiffs (to be approved by the court in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for Darren 

Stemple and $1,000 for Stefan Flores), and attorney’s fees and actual litigation costs and expenses 

(to be approved by the court in an amount not to exceed $681,178.69, or 25 percent of the 

settlement amount, for fees and $15,000 for reasonable actual expenses incurred).17 This amount 

does not include the costs for administration of the settlement, which RingCentral will pay.18

“Individual Settlement Payments” will be calculated based on the number of Individual Work 

Weeks (meaning, the number of workweeks worked by an individual Participating Class Member 

in a Covered Position), weighted according to whether the Participating Class Member is an FLSA 

opt-in only, a Rule 23 Class Member only, or both.19 Participating Class Members who are either 

an FLSA opt-in only or a Rule 23 Class Member only will be weighted at 1.0, and Participating 

Class Members who are both will be weighted at 1.25.20 The settlement agreement has procedures 

for Participating Class Members to dispute their Individual Work Weeks (which will be in the 

Notice to them).21 The Individual Settlement Payments will be divided evenly between (1) wage 

claims, which are subject to required tax withholdings, and (2) liquidated damages, interest, and 

statutory penalties, which will be reported on an IRS Form 1099.22

 

15 Id. at 8 (¶ 8).

16 Id. at 10 (¶ 26). If any Pre-Settlement FLSA Class Members do not return an FLSA Opt-In Claim 

Form, then they will not receive an individual FLSA payment, their FLSA claim will be dismissed 

without prejudice, and the statute of limitations on their FLSA claim will begin running upon final 

approval of the settlement. Id. at 10 (¶ 19). 

17 Id. at 9 (¶ 15), 10 (¶ 23), 11–12 (¶ 33).

18 Id. at 7 (¶ 2).

19 Id. at 22 (¶ 64).

20 Id. at 10 (¶¶ 20–21), 22 (¶ 64).

21 Id. at 19 (¶ 54).

22 Id. at 22 (¶ 64).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

The settlement amount is non-reversionary: (1) if Rule 23 Class Members opt out, their 

allocated payment will be reallocated to the Participating Class Members; and (2) any uncashed 

checks for Rule 23 Class Members will be distributed to cy pres beneficiary Community Legal 

Services in East Palo Alto, a non-profit that specializes in immigration housing, workers’ rights, 

records clearance, and consumer protection.23

If five percent or more of the Class requests exclusion, RingCentral can choose to nullify the 

Settlement Agreement.24

The settlement agreement also provides that the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its 

terms.25

2.3 Release

In return for the settlement relief, the settlement agreement has release provisions. 

FLSA opt-ins release their FLSA claims related to their work with the defendant in Covered 

Positions. The Rule 23 Class Members release their state-law claims relating to work in Covered 

Positions but release FLSA claims only if they opt in. The two named plaintiffs agree to a general 

release.26

2.4 Administration

The settlement will be administered by an independent claims administrator, Simpluris Class 

Action Settlement Administration, which will send class notice to class members at their most 

current mailing address (from RingCentral’s records or any more current address that the 

administrator discovers through reasonable address searches).27 The administrator will update 

addresses before sending the class notices by running a National Change of Address database 

search on all addresses and will perform skip traces on any returned mail.28

 

23 Id. at 21–22 (¶ 64), 24 (¶ 69).

24 Id. at 20–21 (¶ 60).

25 Id. at 20 (¶ 59).

26 Id. at 11 (¶¶ 29–30), 28–29 (¶ 75).

27 Id. at 12 (¶ 34), 17 (¶ 50). 

28 Id. at 15–17 (¶ 47).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

Other administration procedures — including notice, administration, procedures for exclusion, 

and procedures for objections — are set forth in the settlement agreement.29

ANALYSIS

1. Jurisdiction

The court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for the FLSA claims and 

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for the state-law claims.

2. Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes

The court determines whether the settlement classes meet the requirements for class 

certification first under Rule 23 and then under the FLSA.

2.1 Rule 23 Requirements

The court reviews the propriety of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(a) and (b). When parties enter into a settlement before the court certifies a class, the court 

“must pay ‘undiluted, even heightened, attention’ to class certification requirements” because the 

court will not have the opportunity to adjust the class based on information revealed at trial. Staton 

v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952–53 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 

521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)); Espinosa v. Ahearn (In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.), 926 

F.3d 539, 557 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

Class certification requires the following: (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all 

members individually is “impracticable”; (2) there must be questions of law or fact common to the 

class; (3) the claims or defenses of the class representatives must be typical of the claims or 

defenses of the class; and (4) the person representing the class must be able to fairly and

adequately protect the interests of all class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); In re Hyundai and Kia, 

926 F.3d at 556.

 

29 Id. at 15–17 (¶¶ 47, 50). 

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

Here, the factors — numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy — support the 

certification of the class for settlement purposes only. 

First, there are approximately 316 class members.

30 The class is so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable.

Second, there are questions of law and fact common to the class. All class members worked 

for RingCentral as inside sales representatives. Common questions include whether RingCentral

improperly classified them as exempt and whether they thus are entitled to unpaid overtime 

compensation. The claims depend on common contentions that — true or false — will resolve an 

issue central to the validity of the claims. Cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 

(2011); Betorina v. Ranstad US, L.P., No. 15-cv-03646-EMC, 2017 WL 1278758, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 6, 2017).

Third, the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. The 

representative parties and all class members allege wage-and-hours violations based on similar 

facts. All representatives possess the same interest and suffer from the same injury. Cf. Betorina, 

2017 WL 1278758, at *4. 

Fourth, the representative parties fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The 

factors relevant to a determination of adequacy are (1) the absence of potential conflict between 

the named plaintiff and the class members, and (2) counsel chosen by the representative party who 

is qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct the litigation. In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 

F.3d at 566 (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998)). The court is 

satisfied that the factors exist here: the named plaintiffs have shared claims and interests with the 

class (and no conflicts of interest), and they retained qualified and competent counsel who have 

prosecuted the case vigorously. Cf. id.; Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Tr. Fund v. 

Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021–22.

 

30 Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 3 (¶ 5) (316 potential class members; according to the defendant’s 

data, there are over 200 Colorado class members and over 80 North Carolina class members).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 7 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

Thus, the court finds preliminarily (and for settlement purposes only) that the proposed 

settlement class meets the Rule 23(a) prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and 

adequacy: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are 

common questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the 

representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative 

party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

The court also finds preliminarily (and for settlement purposes only31) that questions of law or 

fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently 

adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); cf. Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,

No. C 11-03082 LB, 2014 WL 6483216, at *15–20 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014). The court certifies 

the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only.

The court thus conditionally certifies the class for settlement purposes only and for the 

purposes of giving the class notice of the settlement and conducting a final approval hearing.

2.2 FLSA Class

The FLSA authorizes “opt-in” representative actions where the complaining parties are 

“similarly situated” to other employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); see generally Tyson Foods, Inc. v. 

Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1042 (2016). Here, all class representatives worked at RingCentral 

as inside sales representatives and, as discussed in the previous section, have common fact and law 

questions. The court certifies the FLSA class for settlement purposes only.

 

31 “[W]hether a proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) is informed by whether 

certification is for litigation for settlement. A class that is certifiable for settlement may not be 

certifiable for litigation if the settlement obviates the need to litigate individualized issues that would 

make a trial unmanageable.” In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 F.3d at 558 (citing 2 William B. Rubenstein, 

Newberg on Class Actions § 4:63 (5th ed. 2018)).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 8 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Leave to File Amended Complaint

The approval of a class-action settlement has two stages: (1) the preliminary approval, which 

authorizes notice to the class; and (2) a final fairness hearing, where the court determines whether 

the parties should be allowed to settle the class action on the agreed-upon terms.

Settlement is a strongly favored method for resolving disputes, particularly “where complex 

class action litigation is concerned.” In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 F.3d at 556 (quoting Allen v. 

Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2015)). A court may approve a proposed class-action 

settlement “only after a hearing and only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The court need not ask whether the proposed settlement is ideal or the best 

possible; it determines only whether the settlement is fair, free of collusion, and consistent with 

the named plaintiffs’ fiduciary obligations to the class. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026–27 (9th Cir. 

1998). In Hanlon, the Ninth Circuit identified factors relevant to assessing a settlement proposal: 

“[(1)] the strength of the plaintiff’s case; [(2)] the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 

further litigation; [(3)] the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout trial; [(4)] the amount 

offered in settlement; [(5)] the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceeding; 

[(6)] the experience and views of counsel; [(7)] the presence of a government participant; and 

[(8)] the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Id. at 1026 (citation omitted).

“Where a settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations conducted by capable and 

experienced counsel, the court begins its analysis with a presumption that the settlement is fair and 

reasonable.” Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., No. CV 08 1365 CW (EMC), 2010 WL 

1687832, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010); see, e.g., In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 F.3d at 570

(“‘[W]e put a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated 

resolution.’”) (quoting Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009)); Nat’l 

Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DirecTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“A settlement 

following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length negotiation is presumed fair.”).

The court has evaluated the proposed settlement agreement for overall fairness under the

Hanlon factors and concludes that preliminary approval is appropriate. 

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 9 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 10

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 settlement appears fair. As the plaintiffs point out, it provides good value (when 

contrasted to the maximum damages calculated in anticipation of mediation, discussed supra, 

which assumed complete success on the merits and 100% participation).32 The fees also are 

capped at 25%.

Second, the plaintiffs provide examples of settlements in this district that show that the 

settlement is in the “range of possible approval,” a relevant consideration at the preliminary

approval stage.33 See Betorina, 2017 WL 1278758, at *6 (considerations include whether the 

settlement “(1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has 

no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not grant preferential treatment to class representatives or 

segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval”; court also fully 

considered the Hanlon factors because the settlement was reached before class certification). 

Third, a class action allows class members — who otherwise would not pursue their claims 

individually because costs would exceed recoveries — to obtain relief.

Fourth, litigation poses risk. RingCentral disputes that it wrongly classified the inside sales 

representatives as exempt, and the exemption has not been tested in this industry (which involves 

sales of a cloud-based unified telecommunications system and collaboration solution — including 

video and audio conferencing, team messaging and collaboration, and business-app integration 

features — used in healthcare, financial services, real estate, retrial stores, and enterprises34). 

RingCentral also contends that the plaintiffs worked little overtime, and while the plaintiffs 

dispute this, RingCentral produced some records to support its contention, and the plaintiffs 

concede that there is a bona fide dispute.35 The FLSA also allows only two years of damages 

unless the defendant’s violation is willful, which allows three years of damages. The plaintiffs 

 

32 Mot. – ECF No. 48 at 16–17.

33 See id. at 15–16 (discussing Bisaccia v. Revel Sys. Inc., No. 17-cv-02533-HSG, 2019 WL 861425, at 

*1–3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2019); Nelson v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 13-cv-02276-BLF, 2017 WL 733145, 

at *2–6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)).

34 Id. at 9.

35 Id. at 13.

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 10 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 11

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

again characterize this issue as a bona fide dispute and admit that a two-year damages period 

reduces the plaintiffs’ wage loss significantly.36 Similarly, if RingCentral demonstrated good faith, 

the court could reduce or eliminate any liquidated damages.37 Many of the key witnesses are no 

longer at the company.38 The parties also dispute the appropriate method for calculating 

damages.39 The plaintiffs point out that “it is unclear whether Plaintiffs would be able to obtain 

class certification under Colorado or North Carolina law.”40

Finally, the settlement is the product of serious, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations and 

was reached after mediation with an experienced mediator with subject-matter expertise. 

The recoveries here are adequate to justify preliminary approval. Given other comparable 

settlements, and the litigation risks identified above, the settlement amount at least preliminarily 

appears fair.

4. Appointment of Class Representative, Class Counsel, and Claims Administrator

The court appoints Darren Stemple and Stefan Flores as the class representatives. The court 

finds provisionally that they have claims that are typical of members of the class generally and that 

they are adequate representatives of the other members of the proposed classes. 

The court appoints Matthew C. Helland and Daniel Brome of Nichols Kaster LLP as class 

counsel for settlement purposes only. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (g)(1). The court finds 

provisionally that they have sufficient qualifications, experience, and expertise in prosecuting 

class actions. 

 

36 Id. at 14.

37 Id. at 15 (citation omitted). 

38 Id. at 14.

39 Id.

40 Id. at 17.

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 11 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 12

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

The court designates and approves Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration as the 

claims administrator. It will administer the settlement in accordance with the requirements set 

forth in the settlement agreement. 

5. Class Notice

The court approves the class notice and plan. The court finds that the class notice provides the 

best notice practicable, satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 23, adequately advises class 

members of their rights under the settlement agreement, and meets the requirements of due 

process. Cf. In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 F.3d at 567 (“Notice is satisfactory if it generally 

describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to 

investigate and to come forward and be heard.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 962). The forms of notice fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably 

provide class members with all required information, including (among other things): (1) a 

summary of the lawsuit and claims asserted; (2) a clear definition of the classes; (3) a description 

of the material terms of the settlement, including the estimated payment; (4) a disclosure of the 

release of the claims should they remain class members; (5) an explanation of class members’ optout rights, a date by which they must opt out, and information about how to do so; (6) the date, 

time, and location of the final fairness hearing; and (7) the identity of class counsel and the 

provisions for attorney’s fees, costs, and class-representative service awards.41

6. Compliance with Class Action Fairness Act

The plaintiffs will provide notice of the settlement — which is deemed filed as of the date of 

this order — and other information showing compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 

2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, to the appropriate federal and state officials. Any final settlement 

approval will be more than 90 days after service as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

 

41 Notices of Settlement, Ex. A-2 to Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 37–61.

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 12 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 13

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

7. Procedures for Final Approval Hearing

7.1 Deadlines and Hearing

Event Date

Defendant provides class list to administrator 14 days after preliminary approval

Administrator distributes Notice Packet 14 days from receipt of class list

Last day to return claims forms, reject 

settlement, or opt out (the “Response 

Deadline”)

60 days from mailing of Notice

Deadline to file motion for attorney’s fees 14 days before Response Deadline

File motion for final approval 60 days after preliminary approval

Administrator provides list of exclusions

(timely exclusions and invalid Exclusion 

letters)

5 days after Response Deadline

Final fairness/approval hearing November 14, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

7.2 Final Approval Hearing

At the hearing, the court will consider whether to (1) grant final certification of the settlement 

class, (2) finally approve the settlement agreement and the releases in it, (3) finally approve the 

service awards, and (4) award attorney’s fees and costs to class counsel. The court may, for good 

cause, extend any of the deadlines in this order or continue the final approval hearing without 

further notice to the settlement-class members. 

7.3 Requests for Exclusion From the Settlement

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, class members may opt out of the settlement by 

sending an “Exclusion Letter” on or before the Response Deadline using the procedures set forth 

in the class Notice. The date of the postmark (or equivalent proof of mailing such as FedEx, UPS, 

or certified mail) on the Exclusion Letter Envelope will be the exclusive means used to determine 

whether Class Members timely returned an Exclusion Letter by mail on or before the Response 

Deadline. Failure to request exclusion means that the class member will be deemed a class 

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 13 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 14

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

member and will be bound by the settlement agreement, if the court approves it, and any orders 

and judgment entered by the court.42

7.4 Objections to the Settlement

Participating Class Members who wish to object to the Settlement must submit objections 

using the procedures set forth in the Notice. Any objection must be in writing and must be 

accompanied by any documentary or other evidence and any factual or legal arguments that the 

objecting Participating Class Member intends to rely upon in making the objection. All objections 

must identify the case name and number, must be submitted to the court (either by mailing them to 

the court at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 or by filing them in 

person at this location) and be filed or postmarked on or before the Response Deadline (defined in 

the Settlement Agreement as 60 calendar days from the administrator’s mailing the Notice 

Packet). Class Members who have not excluded themselves and who properly and timely 

submitted objections may appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through a 

lawyer retained at their own expense.43

7.5 Other Orders

Pending the final determination of whether the settlement should be approved, all proceedings 

in this action, except as may be necessary to implement the settlement or comply with the terms of 

the Settlement, are hereby stayed.

Pending the final determination of whether the settlement should be approved, the named 

plaintiffs and Class Members are hereby preliminarily enjoined — during the period between the 

date of this Preliminary Approval and Final Approval of the Settlement — from filing or 

prosecuting any claims, suits, or administrative proceedings regarding claims released by the 

Settlement, unless and until a Class Member has submitted a valid Exclusion Letter (as set forth in 

the Settlement Agreement) to the Settlement Administrator, or, if the Class Member is only a 

 

42 Settlement Agreement, Ex. A to Brome Decl. – ECF No. 48-1 at 18–19 (¶ 53).

43 Id. at 11 (¶ 32), 17–18 (¶ 52).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 14 of 15
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04909-LB 15

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

member of the FLSA Class, the Response Deadline has passed with the Class Member not having 

submitted an FLSA Opt-In Claim Form.44

CONCLUSION

The court (1) conditionally certifies the classes for settlement purposes only, (2) preliminarily 

approves the settlement and authorizes notice as set forth in this order, (3) approves the notice 

plan, (4) appoints the class representatives, class counsel, and claims administrator, (5) orders the

procedures in this order (including all dates in the chart), and (6) orders the parties and the claims 

administrator to carry out their obligations in the settlement agreement. 

This disposes of ECF No. 48.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

44 Id. at 15 (¶ 46).

Case 3:18-cv-04909-LB Document 56 Filed 08/15/19 Page 15 of 15