Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04960/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04960-23/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 

 

 

 

904347.3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

 CASE NO 3:13-CV-04960-VC 

Galvin B. Kennedy, Pro Hac Vice 

gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

Gabriel Assaad, Pro Hac Vice 

gassaad@kennedyhodges.com 

KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 

711 W. Alabama Street 

Houston, TX 77006 

Telephone: (713) 523-0001 

713-523-1116 

John M. Padilla (Cal. Bar No. 279815) 

jpadilla@pandrlaw.com 

PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P. 

601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4050 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Telephone: (213) 244-1401 

Facsimile: (213) 244-1402 

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887) 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

Christopher McNerney Pro Hac Vice 

cmcnerney@outtengolden.com 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

3 Park Ave 

New York, NY 10016 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Lyle E. Galeener and the Putative Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

LYLE E. GALEENER, SEAN HAMER 

and MATTHEW VARGAS, Individually 

and On Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

SOURCE REFRIGERATION & HVAC, 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Case Number: 3:13-cv-04960-VC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 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 

 - 1 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC 

 On August 20, 2015, a hearing was held on the unopposed motion of Plaintiffs Lyle 

Galeener, Matthew Vargas and Sean Hamer for final approval of the class settlement; and on the 

separate motion of Plaintiffs and their counsel for awards of the Class Representative Service 

Payments and the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Payment. Galvin B. Kennedy, Jahan 

C. Sagafi and John M. Padilla appeared for Plaintiffs; and _____________________________, 

appeared for Source. 

The Parties have submitted their Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Class 

Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”), which this Court preliminarily approved in its March 

13, 2015 order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). In accordance with the Preliminary 

Approval Order, Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the 

opportunity to submit a claim form, comment on the settlement, and/or opt out of its provisions. 

In addition, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (“CAFA”), 

Source has given the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state officials in 

the states in which the Class Members reside timely notice of the Settlement. 

Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the Parties, 

and the evidence and argument received by the Court at the final approval hearing on August 20, 

2015, by means of this order (the “Final Approval Order”) the Court grants final approval to the 

Settlement, and HEREBY ORDERS and MAKES DETERMINATIONS as follows: 

Definitions

1. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Court for purposes of this Final 

Approval Order adopts all defined terms set forth in the Settlement. 

Jurisdiction

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all related 

matters and all state and federal claims raised in this action and released in the Settlement, and 

personal jurisdiction over Source and all Class Members (except for those who timely filed opt 

out requests). Specifically, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). 

Lucas Munoz

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 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 

 

 - 2 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

3. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims asserted by 

Plaintiffs because the state-law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and form 

part of the same case or controversy as those claims over which the Court has primary 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (providing for supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims that “form part of the same case or controversy”); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 

U.S. 715, 726 (1996) (holding that federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law 

claims that arise from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” such that the parties “would 

ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding”). 

4. This Court also has jurisdiction to approve the Settlement’s release of claims by 

Class Members over which the Court has jurisdiction, even if the Court would not independently 

have jurisdiction over those released claims. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 

F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287-88 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] federal court may release not only claims alleged in the complaint, but also 

state claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts over which the court would not 

have jurisdictional competence.”)). 

Dissemination of notice to Class Members

5. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, notice and an individualized claim 

form was sent to each Class Member by personal email and by first-class mail. The notice was 

clear and organized, following the model forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center at 

www.fjc.gov. The notice materials informed Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, how 

their settlement share would be calculated, how to receive their settlement share, how to 

challenge the pre-printed data provided by Source that would be used to calculate their 

settlement share, their right to comment on (including object to) the Settlement or opt out of the 

Settlement to pursue their claims individually, and their right to appear in person or by counsel at 

the final approval hearing and be heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate periods 

of time were provided by each of these procedures. 

6. The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate 

protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 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 

 

 - 3 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

regarding approval of the Settlement based on the responses of Class Members. Notice was 

accomplished in the manner prescribed by the Settlement. The Court finds and determines that 

the notice provided in this case was the best notice practicable, which satisfied the requirements 

of law and due process. 

Notice to attorneys general pursuant to CAFA

7. Pursuant to CAFA, within 10 days after the filing of the motion seeking 

preliminary approval of the Settlement, Source served upon the Attorney General of the United 

States and the appropriate state officials of the states in which the Class Members reside a notice 

of the Settlement consisting of: a copy of the complaint in this action; a notice of the scheduled 

judicial hearings in this class action; copies of the Settlement; the proposed Notice; and the 

names of Class Members and their estimated proportionate share of the entire Settlement. The 

Notice of Settlement also invited comment on the Settlement. This Final Approval Order is 

being entered at least 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate federal and 

state officials were served with the notice of proposed settlement. 

8. The Court finds and determines that Source’s notice of Settlement was timely, 

adequate, and compliant with the statutory requirements of CAFA. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. 

section 1715(e) has no application to the Settlement. 

Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the FLSA

9. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, this Court finds and 

determines that the proposed Settlement Class, as defined in the definitions section of the 

Settlement and in section II of its Preliminary Approval Order, meets all of the legal 

requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”) (a) and 

(b)(3), and it is hereby ordered that the Settlement Class is finally approved and certified as a 

Class for purposes of settlement of this action. 

10. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, this Court finds and 

determines that the action meets all of the legal requirements for certification as a collective 

action under section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the three-year period preceding 

the filing of Plaintiffs’ complaint, and it is hereby ordered that the action is certified as a 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 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 

 

 - 4 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

collective action for purposes of settlement of this action. 

Fairness

11. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court further finds and determines that the terms of 

the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member and that 

the Class Members who have not opted out will be bound by the Settlement, that the Settlement 

is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and 

hereby are ordered to be consummated. The Court specifically finds that the Settlement is 

rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and 

duration of further litigation. This Court also finds that the Settlement is the result of armslength negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class Members 

and Source, under the supervision of an experienced and independent third-party mediator, after 

thorough factual and legal investigation. Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1291. 

12. The Court finds and determines that the payments to be made to the Class 

Members as provided for in the Settlement are fair and reasonable. The proposed plan of 

allocation bases each Class Member’s recovery on (a) the number of weeks during the Covered 

Period worked by the Class Member, (b) the average hours worked during the Compensable 

Work Weeks by the Class Member, (c) the hourly rate paid to each Class Member during the last 

available Compensable Work Week, and (4) whether the Class Member worked in California. 

The plan of allocation is rational. The Court hereby gives final approval to and orders the 

payment of those amounts be made to the claimants out of the $10,000,000 Settlement Payment 

in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 

Class Member response

13. The Court further finds that the response of the Class Members to the Settlement 

supports settlement approval. Of the 1145 Class Members, only 1 opted out of the Settlement. 

No Class Member objected to the Settlement. 

Appointment of Class Representative; service payment

14. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Lyle Galeener as Class 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 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 

 

 - 5 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

Representative of the Arizona, California and Nevada Rule 23 Classes, Matthew Vargas as Class 

Representative of the Colorado Rule 23 Class, Erik Brown as Representative of the Florida, 

Georgia and Oregon Rule 23 Classes, Jesse Howell as Class Representative of the Idaho Rule 23 

Class, Keith Brown as Class Representative of the New Mexico Rule 23 Class, Sean Hamer as 

Class Representative of the Texas Rule 23 Class, Joseph Metko as Class Representative of the 

Washington Rule 23 Class, and Messrs. Galeener, Vargas, E. Brown, Howell, K. Brown and 

Hamer as Class Representatives of the nationwide FLSA Class under section 16(b). The Court 

finds and determines that the award of $27,000 to Mr. Vargas, $25,000 to Mr. Galeener, $15,000 

for Mr. Hamer and $2,000 each for Messrs. E. Brown, K. Brown, Howell and Metko, for their 

services as Class Representatives, in addition to their individual Settlement Shares, is fair and 

reasonable. 

15. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the criteria as set forth in Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 

F.3d 938, 963 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Staton, such awards should be evaluated using “‘relevant 

factors, includ[ing] the actions the Plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the 

degree to which the class has benefited from those actions, ... the amount of time and effort the 

Plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation ... and reasonabl[e] fear[s] of workplace 

retaliation.’” Staton, 327 F.3d at 977 (citing Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 

1998)) (ellipses in original). Here, Lyle Galeener’s initiation of this suit, Matthew Vargas’ 

initiation of Vargas v. Source Refrigeration HVAC, Inc., No. 2013-cv-32936-00712145-CU-OECXC (Denver County) (“Vargas”) and Sean Hamer’s initiation of Hamer v. Source Refrigeration 

HVAC, Inc., No 1:14-cv-570-55 (W.D. Tex.) caused them personal exposure and potential 

adverse consequences with future employers. Likewise, Messrs. E. Brown, K. Brown, Howell 

and Metko have taken risks by affiliating themselves publicly with the lawsuit; their 

representation of the Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oregon and Washington Class Members enhanced 

the case’s value overall by increasing Source’s potential exposure. 

16. The Class Representative’s assertion of state law claims on behalf of their fellow 

Class Members tolled the statutes of limitations for those state law claims, to the benefit of the 

Class Members who worked or work in those states. Furthermore, Class Counsel attests that 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 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 

 

 - 6 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

Messrs. Galeener, Vargas and Hamer were substantially involved throughout the litigation, 

educating Class Counsel regarding Class Members’ job duties and Source’s policies and 

procedures. Messrs. Galeener, Vargas and Hamer also attended the second mediation in this 

case. The Court hereby gives final approval to and orders that the Class Representative 

Payments as set forth herein be made to Plaintiffs out of the Qualified Settlement Fund in 

accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 

Appointment of Class Counsel; attorneys’ fees and costs

17. The Court confirms as final the appointment of the following law firms and 

attorneys as class counsel (“Class Counsel”) for the Rule 23 and FLSA Classes: Galvin B. 

Kennedy and Gabriel Assaad of Kennedy Hodges, LLP, Jahan C. Sagafi and Christopher 

McNerney of Outten & Golden LLP and John M. Padilla of Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. The 

Court finds and determines that the payment of $3,000,000 in attorneys’ fees and $195,000 in 

litigation costs and expenses, for a total payment of $3,195,000 to Class Counsel, is fair and 

reasonable and consistent with Ninth Circuit fee jurisprudence. See, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft 

Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002); Chemical Bank v. City of Seattle (In re Washington Public 

Power Supply Sec. Litig.), 19 F.3d 1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court hereby gives final 

approval to and orders that that payment of that amount be made to Class Counsel out of the 

Qualified Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 

Settlement Administrator report

18. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement 

Administrator will provide written certification of such completion to the Court and counsel for 

the Parties. 

Release

19. By operation of the entry of this Final Approval Order and pursuant to the 

Settlement, all Participating Class Members are permanently barred from prosecuting against 

Source any Participating Class Member Released Claim as set forth in section XVI of the 

Settlement. The Court has reviewed the release in section XV of the Settlement and finds it to be 

fair, reasonable, and enforceable under Rule 23, the FLSA, and all other applicable law. 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 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 

 

 - 7 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

Contingency on finality

20. If, for any reason, the Settlement ultimately does not become Final (as defined in 

the Settlement, section I(P)), this Final Approval Order will be vacated; the Parties will return to 

their respective positions in this action as those positions existed immediately before the parties 

executed the Settlement; and nothing stated in the Settlement or any other papers filed with this 

Court in connection with the Settlement will be deemed an admission of any kind by any of the 

Parties or used as evidence against, or over the objection of, any of the Parties for any purpose in 

this action or in any other action. 

No admission of liability

21. The Parties entered into the Settlement solely for the purpose of compromising 

and settling disputed claims. Source in no way admits any violation of law or any liability 

whatsoever to Plaintiffs and the Class, individually or collectively, all such liability being 

expressly denied by Source. Source in no way admits that this action could have been properly 

maintained as a collection action or a class action if it had not been settled. 

Final judgment and dismissal

22. By means of this Final Approval Order, this Court hereby enters final judgment in 

this action, as defined in Federal Rule of Procedure 58(a)(1). 

23. Without affecting the finality of the Court’s judgment in any way, the Court 

retains jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of resolving issues relating to interpretation, 

administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement. Nothing in this 

Final Approval Order will preclude any action to enforce the Parties’ obligations under the 

Settlement or under this order, including the requirement that Source make the Settlement 

Payment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 

24. The Parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement. 

25. This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and 

attorneys’ fees except as provided by the Settlement and the Court’s orders. 

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 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 

 

 - 8 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04960-VC

Dated: ____________, 2015 The Honorable Vince Chhabria 

United States District Judge 

August 20

Case 3:13-cv-04960-VC Document 157 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 9