Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH SOBEK, 

individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated current and former 

employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

ORDER GRANTING

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

This matter came for hearing on January 29, 2015, upon Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement 

and Release. The purpose of the hearing was to determine, among other things, whether the proposed 

Settlement Agreement and Release was within the range of possible approval and whether to proceed 

with Notice to the Class of its terms and conditions, and the scheduling of a formal fairness hearing, 

also known as a final approval hearing. The Court having considered the Settlement Agreement and 

Release, all papers and proceedings held herein, having reviewed the record in this action, Campbell et 

al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case No. 2:06-CV-02376 TLN/AC, (the “Action”), and good 

cause appearing, finds that:

WHEREAS, this Action was commenced in the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 1 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

California on October 27, 2006; and

WHEREAS, by Order dated March 25, 2008, the Court provisionally certified the class, which 

has been defined during the litigation as all persons employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

(“PwC” or “Defendant”) in California who, at any time during the period of October 27, 2002 to July 

23, 2008 (a) worked as associates in the Attest Division of PwC’s Assurance Line of Service, (b) were 

not licensed as certified public accountants by the State of California for some or all of the period they 

worked in this position, and (c) were classified as exempt employees while working in this position; 

and

WHEREAS, Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP was previously appointed as Class Counsel for 

the litigation class and Plaintiffs Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek were previously appointed as Class 

Representatives; and

WHEREAS, during the eight years the Action has been pending, the parties have engaged in 

fact and expert discovery, motion practice, litigation in this Court and in the Ninth Circuit, and were 

preparing for trial scheduled to commence on March 30, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have engaged in Court-ordered mediation before Magistrate Judge 

Kendall J. Newman, which process resulted in the Settlement Agreement and Release; and

WHEREAS, a resolution to this Action was reached following a mediator’s proposal by 

Magistrate Judge Newman; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that this case is meritorious and that class certification was and 

continues to be appropriate; and

WHEREAS, Defendant denies any liability and wrongdoing of any kind associated with the 

claims alleged in this Action, and continues to deny that this Action is appropriate for class treatment 

for any purpose other than this Settlement; and 

WHEREAS, Defendant contends, among other things, that it has complied at all times with the 

California Labor Code, Fair Labor Standards Act, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-

2001, and the California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. and specifically contends that 

classification of any Attest Associate as an exempt employee was and continues to be a correct 

classification under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act; and

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 2 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

WHEREAS, PwC is not reclassifying its Attest Associates as non-exempt as a condition of the 

Settlement Agreement and Release, or otherwise; and

WHEREAS, Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of this Action, 

is knowledgeable about and has done extensive research with respect to the applicable law and the 

defenses asserted by Defendant to the claims of the Class and has diligently litigated the Class 

Members’ claims against Defendant, and therefore Class Counsel has an appropriate basis to evaluate 

the value of this Settlement; and

WHEREAS, based on its investigation of the facts of the Action, research, experience, and 

familiarity with the record of the Action, Class Counsel is of the opinion that the Settlement with 

Defendant for the consideration and on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release is 

fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the Class Members in light of all known 

facts and circumstances, including the uncertainty associated with litigation, the defenses asserted by 

Defendant, the governing law and numerous potential appellate issues; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to compromise and fully settle their claims with finality and 

agree to the Settlement of this Action, and entered into the Settlement Agreement and Release on 

January 14, 2015, setting forth the terms of the Settlement in this Action,

NOW, therefore, the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. To the extent defined in the Settlement Agreement and Release and incorporated herein 

by reference, the terms in this Order shall have the meanings set forth therein.

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action, the Named Plaintiffs, 

the Class, and PwC.

3. The Court hereby grants Preliminary Approval of the terms and conditions contained in 

the Settlement Agreement and Release. The Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement and Release appear to be within the range of possible approval, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(e) and applicable law.

4. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that: (1) the Settlement Agreement and 

Release is fair and reasonable to the Class Members when balanced against the possible outcome of 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 3 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

further litigation relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) 

significant discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for 

the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) Settlement at this 

time will avoid substantial costs, delay and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of 

the litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release has been reached as the result of 

intensive, serious and non-collusive negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court 

preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement and Release was entered into in good faith.

5. The class, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only and with no other effect on this 

litigation or any other proceeding, including if the Settlement Agreement and Release ultimately is not 

approved or final judgment is not entered, is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 

related case law and is defined as follows:

All individuals employed by Defendant in California: (a) who worked as an Associate 

in the Attest Division of Defendant’s Assurance Line of Service at any time during the 

period October 27, 2002 to July 23, 2008; (b) who were not licensed as certified public 

accountants by the State of California for some or all of the time they worked in this 

position during that period; (c) who were classified as exempt employees while 

working in this position during that period; (d) who were sent a class notice on or 

about July 23, 2008 notifying them that they are members of the certified class in this 

Action; and (e) who did not validly or timely exclude themselves from the Action 

following dissemination of the July 2008 class notice.

6. Plaintiffs Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek are hereby appointed as Class 

Representatives, and William A. Kershaw, Lyle W. Cook and Stuart C. Talley from the firm Kershaw, 

Cutter & Ratinoff LLP and James P. Ulwick and Jean E. Lewis, from the firm Kramon & Graham, P.A. 

are hereby appointed as Settlement Class Counsel.

7. The Court hereby authorizes the retention of Heffler Claims Group as Settlement 

Administrator for the purpose of implementing certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement and 

Release.

8. The Court hereby approves the Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement of 

Class Action and Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement of Class Action to Le/Kress Opt-In 

FLSA Attest Associate Plaintiffs, attached to the Settlement Agreement and Release as Exhibits A-D. 

The Court finds that the Notice Packet, along with the related notification procedure contemplated by 

the Settlement Agreement and Release, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 4 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

and is in full compliance with the applicable laws and the requirements of due process. The Court 

further finds that the Notice Packet appears to fully and accurately inform the Class Members of all 

material elements of the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release, of the Class Members’ right to 

be excluded from the Settlement, and of each Class Member’s right and opportunity to object to the 

Settlement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release, the Notice Packet shall be 

mailed via first class mail to the last known address of each Class Member within the timeframe 

specified in the Settlement Agreement and Release.

9. The Court hereby approves the proposed procedure for Class Member exclusion from 

the Settlement, which is to submit an Exclusion Letter to the Settlement Administrator no later than the 

Objection/Exclusion Deadline identified in the Notice Packet (or for re-mailed Notice Packets, no later 

than 30 days from the postmark of the re-mailed Notice Packet). Any Class Member who submits a 

valid and timely request for exclusion shall not be a Settlement Class Member and shall not be bound 

by the Settlement. Such Opt Outs shall be barred from participating in the Settlement, shall be barred 

from objecting to the Settlement and appearing or being heard before the Court at the Final Approval 

hearing, and shall receive no benefit from the Settlement.

10. The Court further orders that each Class Member who does not properly and timely 

submit an Exclusion Letter shall be given a full opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement and 

request for attorneys’ fees, and to participate in the Final Approval hearing, which the Court sets to 

commence on May 7, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. Any Class Member seeking to object to the proposed Settlement shall file such 

objection in writing with the Court and shall serve such objection on Class Counsel and Defendant’s 

Counsel no later than the Objection/Exclusion Deadline in the Notice Packet (or for re-mailed Notice 

Packets, no later than 30 days from the postmark of the re-mailed Notice Packet). In addition, any 

attorney who intends to represent a Class Member objecting to the Settlement must file a notice of 

appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all Parties no later than the Objection/Exclusion 

Deadline in the Notice Packet (or for re-mailed Notice Packets, no later than 30 days from the postmark 

of the re-mailed Notice Packet). Any Class Member who fails to properly and timely file and serve 

these materials shall be foreclosed from objecting to the proposed Settlement, unless otherwise ordered 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 5 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

by the Court.

11. The Court further orders that Class Counsel shall file motions for approval of the Fee 

Award, Expense Award and the Class Representative Service Award, with the appropriate declarations 

and supporting evidence, by February 25, 2015, to be heard at the same time as the motion for Final 

Approval of the Settlement.

12. The Court further orders that Class Counsel shall file a motion for Final Approval of the 

Settlement, with the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, including a declaration setting 

forth the identity of any Class Members who request exclusion from the Settlement, by April 10, 2015.

13. The Court further orders that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings in this 

Action except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement Agreement and Release are stayed.

14. The Court further orders that to facilitate administration of this Settlement, all Class 

Members are hereby enjoined from filing or prosecuting any claims, cases, suits or administrative 

proceedings (including filing or pursuing claims with the California Division of Labor Standards 

Enforcement) regarding claims released by the Settlement unless and until such Class Members have 

submitted valid and timely Exclusion Letters with the Settlement Administrator. 

15. If the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement and enters judgment, Settlement 

Class Members and their successors shall conclusively be deemed to have given a release, as set forth 

in the Settlement Agreement and Release and Notice Packet, against the Released Parties, and all 

Settlement Class Members and their successors shall be permanently enjoined and forever barred from 

asserting any claim covered by the Class Released Claims. 

16. If for any reason the Court does not execute and file a Final Approval Order and 

Judgment of Dismissal, the proposed Settlement subject to this Order and all evidence and proceedings 

had in connection with the Settlement shall be null and void.

17. Upon entry of this Order, the Parties shall proceed toward a hearing on final approval, 

consistent with the deadlines set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release.

18. The Court, on its own initiative or pursuant to stipulation or motion practice, may extend 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 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

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

- 6 - CASE NO. 06-CV-02376 TLN/AC

any of the deadlines set forth in this Order or adjourn or continue the final approval hearing without 

further notice to the Class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 648 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 7