Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05449/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05449-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

FEDERICO VILCHIZ VASQUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USM INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05449-JD 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 121

This putative class action alleges that Ross and its janitorial contractor, USM, violated 

California Labor Code section 2810 and other California laws, primarily by entering into 

inadequately-funded subcontracts with the janitorial subcontractors who employed the putative 

class members to provide “daily maintenance” janitorial services at Ross Dress for Less and “dd’s 

DISCOUNTS” stores in California. The parties have reached a proposed settlement, and ask the 

Court to preliminarily approve it. After holding a hearing and requesting certain changes to the 

settlement -- which the parties have made -- the Court grants preliminary approval and certifies the 

class for purposes of preliminary approval.

BACKGROUND

This case was removed to this Court from California state court on November 22, 2013. 

See Dkt. No. 1. Several months of discovery followed, during which defendants produced over 

116,000 pages of documents, presented six witnesses for deposition under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 30(b)(6), deposed named plaintiffs, and propounded and responded to requests for 

document production and interrogatories. See Ho Decl. ¶ 10, Dkt. No. 121-1. On October 24, 

2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. See Dkt. No. 84-1. After the motion was 

fully briefed (including the submission of a number of expert reports from both sides), and one 

Case 3:13-cv-05449-JD Document 134 Filed 04/13/15 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

day before it was set for hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed to a 

settlement. See Dkt. No. 117.

The basic terms of the proposed settlement are straightforward. Defendants have agreed to 

pay $1,000,000 into a non-reversionary settlement fund, which will be the source for settlement 

administration costs (up to a maximum of $125,000), a $5,000 payment under California’s Private 

Attorney General Act, and monetary relief for the class -- including any service payments to the 

named plaintiffs, to the extent the Court later approves them. See Consent Decree § VII.A, Ho 

Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. No. 121-1. Importantly, attorney’s fees will not come out of the settlement 

fund; they will be paid by defendants separately.

The amount of monetary relief each class member gets will depend on the amount of 

information he or she provides to the settlement administrator, but even those who take no action 

at all will receive some money. All members of the class will receive at least an “Automatic 

Payment” of $50-$250. See id. § VII.C. Those who submit claim forms listing their contact 

information and information about the stores where they provided daily maintenance, the dates 

they provided service, and the subcontractors who employed them will instead receive “Minimum 

Claimed Payments” up to $575. See id. Finally, those who submit claim forms that additionally 

include tax information will get an “Additional Claimed Payment” of up to $16,500, determined 

by taking the portion of the settlement fund available for monetary relief for class members, 

subtracting the Automatic Payments and Minimum Claimed Payments, and dividing it up pro rata 

based on the number of store months worked. See id. Any amount associated with uncashed 

checks will be paid half to Centro Legal de la Raza, one quarter to the Employee Rights Center, 

and one quarter to California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. See id. § VII.F.

The settlement also provides for injunctive relief, which is described in section VIII of the 

consent decree. Among other things, the injunctive relief provision requires USM to randomly 

review a portion of its subcontractors to determine whether they have paid their employees the 

minimum wage and overtime, and to either ensure that the subcontractor has paid the shortfall or 

to pay the shortfall itself. See id. § VIII.A. Moreover, USM is to ensure that its subcontractors 

sent their employees a “Notice of Rights,” and must report the results of its reviews to class 

Case 3:13-cv-05449-JD Document 134 Filed 04/13/15 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

counsel at the end of each quarter. See id.

The scope of the released claims is as follows:

All Eligible Claimants shall be deemed to have released Defendants 

from any and all claims arising out of the facts as alleged in the 

Second Amended Complaint regarding the provision of Daily 

Maintenance Services at a Ross store in California in connection

with the performance of a contract or agreement between USM and 

Ross for the provision of Daily Maintenance Services at a Ross store 

in California at any time from September 5, 2009 until February 10, 

2015, including, but not limited to, any claim under any federal, 

state or local statute including, but not limited to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, the California Business and Professions Code § 

17200 et seq.; any provision of the California Labor Code including, 

but not limited to, Labor Code § 2810, and any other federal, state or 

local law or ordinance relating to the payment of wages.

Id. § VI.B.

Notice will be sent by mail to all known addresses of class members, as well as to current 

employees. See id. § VIII.A ¶ 14. The settlement also provides for publication notice via radio, 

print media, and a website. See id. VII.B.2. Class members will have 120 days to opt out or 

object. See Addendum to Consent Decree ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 133-1.

DISCUSSION

Although the Ninth Circuit has not set forth a test for granting preliminary approval of a 

settlement, some prior decisions from this district have looked to whether the settlement “falls 

within the range of possible approval” or “within the range of reasonableness.” See In re High 

Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2014 WL 3917126, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

8, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007));

see also Alba Conte et al., Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25, at 11-91 (4th ed. 2002). The Court 

finds that the proposed settlement meets that standard. It provides for a non-trivial recovery for all 

class members, including those who do not affirmatively mail in a claim form. Moreover, the 

briefing and expert reports the parties submitted in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification suggests that plaintiffs’ case faced significant risks, including the ascertainability of 

the class, the reliability of the janitorial subcontractors’ time sheets in measuring the number of 

hours their employees worked per day, and the number of violations subject to the statutory 

damages provision in California Labor Code section 2810(g). For example, with respect to the 

Case 3:13-cv-05449-JD Document 134 Filed 04/13/15 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

last issue, if defendants were to prevail in their claim that § 2810(g) only entitles plaintiffs at most

to statutory damages for two violations per class member (one with respect to Ross-USM 

agreement and one with respect to the agreement between USM and the relevant class member’s 

subcontractor), rather than additional violations each month, then damages would be 

approximately $1,200,000 -- $250 in statutory damages per contract × 2,400 class members × 2 

contracts -- not much higher than the $1,000,000 settlement. It would be reasonable for class

members to accept the settlement amount and the specified injunctive relief in light of these risks.

The Court therefore preliminary approves the consent decree as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the Court certifies an injunctive 

relief class for purposes of implementing the consent decree consisting of:

All persons currently providing Daily Maintenance Service at a Ross 

store in California in connection with the performance of a contract 

or agreement between USM and Ross for the provision of janitorial 

services.

Furthermore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a monetary 

relief class for purposes of implementing the consent decree consisting of:

All persons who have provided Daily Maintenance Service at a Ross 

store in California in connection with the performance of a contract 

or agreement between USM and Ross for the provision of janitorial 

services from September 5, 2009 until February 10, 2015, except 

those who file a timely request to opt out of and be excluded from 

the monetary relief provisions of the Consent Decree.

In both cases, “Daily Maintenance Service” is defined as provided in the consent decree. See

Consent Decree § III. The Court appoints Federico Vilchiz Vasquez, Jesus Vilchez Vasquez, Ada 

Cañez, Emigdio Mendez, Candelaria Hurtado, and Evelia Martinez as class representatives, and, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), appoints Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, 

Chavez & Gertler LLP, Legal Aid of Marin, and the Stanford Community Law Clinic, as class 

counsel for purposes of implementing the consent decree.

Finally, the Court approves the parties’ proposed notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(c)(2), as revised by the parties following the preliminary approval hearing. See

Addendum to Proposed Consent Decree Exs. A, B, Dkt. No. 133-1.

The Court sets a final approval hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 3:13-cv-05449-JD Document 134 Filed 04/13/15 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

23(e)(2) for September 23, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval and any 

memorandum in support by defendants should be filed by September 9, 2015. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, and any motion for service awards to the class 

representatives should be filed no later than 14 days before the deadline for class members to 

object or opt out of the settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05449-JD Document 134 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 5