Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02592/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02592-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

1

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

Mark R. Thierman, CBN 72913 

THIERMAN LAW FIRM 

7287 Lakeside Drive 

Reno, NV 89511 

Tel: (775) 284-1500 

Fax: (775) 703-5027 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Robert M. Pattison, CBN 103528 

Scott Oborne, CBN 191257 

JACKSON LEWIS, LLP 

199 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Tel: (415) 394-9400 

Fax: (415) 394-9401 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT WOOD, CHARLES W. JUDSON, 

WILLIAM BATES, SYBILLE GROTE, 

MARTIN REEVES, ERNEST STEWART, 

STEVE FORSYTHE, ROBERT BADILLA, 

BRIAN THOMPSON, KARVIN 

TILANDER, CHARLES (“CHUCK”) 

JENNINGS, LORENZO RAMIEREZ and 

MINDY GABRIEL on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 

and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: S-03-2592 DFL PAN 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

OF DISMISSAL 

Date: June 29, 2006 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 7 

Judge: David Levi 

/// 

/// 

/// 

///

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

SCOTT WOOD, CHARLES W. JUDSON, 

WILLIAM BATES, SYBILLE GROTE, 

MARTIN REEVES, ERNEST STEWART, 

STEVE FORSYTHE, ROBERT BADILLA, 

BRIAN THOMPSON, KARVIN TILANDER 

and CHUCK JENNINGS, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

VALENTINE SURFACING, TRAVELERS 

CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY 

OF AMERICA and UNITED PACIFIC 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Related Case No. S-03-2514-DFL-PAN 

 This matter came on for hearing upon the joint application of the Settling Parties 

for approval of the settlement set forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement.1 Due and adequate 

notice having been given to the Class, and the Court having considered the Settlement, 

Agreement, all papers filed and proceedings had herein, and all oral and written comments 

received regarding the Settlement Agreement, and having reviewed the record in this litigation, 

and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Court, for purposes of this Judgment and Order of Dismissal 

(“Judgment”), adopts all defined terms as set forth in the parties’ Stipulation Re: Settlement of 

Class Action filed in this case. 

 

1 The specific terms of the parties’ settlement, including the definitions of capitalized terms set forth in this 

Judgment and Order of Dismissal, are set forth in the Stipulation Re: Settlement of Class Action filed by the parties, 

referred to in the Judgment and Order of Dismissal as the parties’ “Settlement Agreement.”. 

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation, the 

Class Representatives, the other Members of the Settlement Class and Granite Construction 

Company. 

3. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice to Class Regarding the 

Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement as provided for in the Order Granting Final 

Approval of Settlement constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all 

Class Members, and fully met the requirements of due process under the United States 

Constitution and California law. Based on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction 

with the Court’s consideration of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, the actual notice to the 

Class was adequate. 

4. The Court finds in favor of the settlement approval. 

5. The Court approves the settlement of the above-captioned action, as set 

forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement, Each of the releases and other terms is fair, just, 

reasonable and adequate as to the Settling Parties. The Settling Parties are directed to perform in 

accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

6. Except as to any individual claim of those persons who have validly and 

timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, all of the Released Claims are dismissed 

with prejudice as to the Members of the Settlement Class, including the Class Representatives. 

The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

7. Solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, this Court has certified 

a class of all Members of the Settlement Class, as that term is defined in and by the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement, and the Court deems this definition sufficient for purposes of due process 

and Rule 23. 

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 3 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

8. With respect to the Settlement Class and for purposes of approving this 

settlement, the Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Members of the Settlement Class are 

ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are 

questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, and there is a well defined community 

of interest among Members of the Settlement Class with respect to the subject matter of the 

litigation; (c) the claims of Class Representatives, Scott Wood, et al., are typical of the claims of 

the Members of the Settlement Class; (d) the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately 

protected the interests of the Members of the Settlement Class; (e) a class action is superior to 

other available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) the counsel of 

record for the Class Representatives, i.e. Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as counsel for the 

Class Representatives in their individual and representatives capacities and for the Settlement 

Class. 

9. By operation of this Judgment, each Member of the Settlement Class, 

including all Class Representatives, shall have, fully, finally and forever released, relinquished 

and discharged all Released Claims (including Unknown Claims), as that term is defined in the 

Settlement Agreement. The Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, include 

without limitation, and all claim demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action of every nature 

and description whatsoever including without limitation statutory, constitutional, contractual or 

common law claims, whether known or unknown, whether or not concealed or hidden, against 

Granite Construction Company, that accrued at any time on or prior to the final approval date for 

any type of relief, including without limitation claims for wages, damages, unpaid costs, 

penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, litigation costs, 

restitution, or equitable relief, based on the following categories of allegations: (a) any and all 

claims, including without limitation claims for unpaid wages, i.e. wages that were not paid for 

work on public works projects. The specific definition of Released Claims set forth in the 

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 4 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

parties’ Stipulation Re: Settlement of Class Action defines the specific parameters of this 

release. 

10. The Settlement Agreement, nor any act performed or document executed 

pursuant to or in furtherance of the Agreement shall not be deemed to be or may be used as an 

admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or 

liability of Granite Construction Company; and shall not be deemed to be or may be used as an 

admission of, or evidence of, any fault of Granite Construction Company. 

11. The only Settlement Class Members entitled to payment pursuant to this 

Judgment are the Class Members with an Approved Claim, as that term is defined under the 

parties’ Settlement Agreement. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor this Judgment will result 

in the creation of any unpaid residue or residual. 

12. Granite Construction Company has agreed to pay Class Counsel their 

reasonable attorney’s fees in this matter in the amount of twenty-five percent (25%) of the 

Maximum Settlement Payment, less any potential Settlement Payments attributable to those 

Class Members who submit Opt Out forms, as well as certain allowable costs in this matter up to 

the amount of $8,000.00. Granite Construction Company has further agreed to pay an 

enhancement to the Class Representatives to reimburse them for their unique services in the 

amount of $10,000.00 each. The court finds that these agreements are fair and reasonable. 

Granite Construction Company is directed to make such payments in accordance with the terms 

of the Settlement Agreement. 

13. The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the 

litigation, the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class and Granite Construction Company 

for the purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, administration 

and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment. 

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 5 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

14. Based on the foregoing, and in consideration of the parties’ request to 

dismiss this Lawsuit in its entirety, this Order of Dismissal achieves dismissal of the entire 

Lawsuit. 

15. This document shall constitute a judgment (and separate document 

constituting said judgment) for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 58. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/29/2006 

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 6 of 7
 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

Case 2:03-cv-02592-DFL -PAN Document 99 Filed 06/30/06 Page 7 of 7