Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05230/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05230-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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 JOSE DIVISION

JEFFREY LUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521, et

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL 

CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 53

WHEREAS, a putative class action captioned Lum, et al. v. Service Employees 

International Union Local 521, et al., Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK is pending before the Court, 

and

WHEREAS, Jeffrey Lum and Andrew Li (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and in 

their representative capacities on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendants Service 

Employees International Union Local 521 (“Local 521”), the County of Santa Clara (“the 

County”), and Alan Minato, in his official capacity as the Controller-Treasurer of the County, (all 

together, “Defendants”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 53-1, which, with the 

exhibit attached thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and 

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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

dismissal of Counts II and III of the First Amended Complaint with prejudice as to Defendants;

This matter coming before the Court upon the agreement of the Parties and the motion of 

Plaintiffs seeking provisional certification of the Settlement Class and preliminary approval of the 

Settlement Agreement, good cause being shown, and the Court being fully advised in the 

premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Terms and phrases in this order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the 

Settlement Agreement.

Settlement Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only

2. A class (the “Settlement Class”) is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only.

a. The Settlement Class is defined to include: “[A]ll nonmember Employees who, 

between December 1, 2012, and the date of final approval of this Agreement by the District Court, 

have timely and properly objected to paying non-chargeable fees to Local 521.” “Employee” is 

defined as “a public sector employee who is represented in collective bargaining by Local 521.”

b. The requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are satisfied 

by the facts and evidence in this case as demonstrated in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify the 

Settlement Class and Appoint Settlement Class Counsel and their supporting Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities. The Settlement Class consists of 3,959 members, there are questions of 

law or fact common to the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the 

Settlement Class, and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement 

Class.

c. In addition, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply 

generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 

Further, the monetary relief appears incidental to the injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit has 

explained that “in Rule 23(b)(2) cases, monetary damage requests are generally allowable only if 

they are merely incidental to the litigation.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 986 

(9th Cir. 2011). Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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

131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), “called into doubt” the continuing viability of the “merely incidental” 

standard, the Ninth Circuit directed district courts that incidental monetary relief may be provided 

in Rule 23(b)(2) classes absent “individualized determinations of each employee’s eligibility for 

[monetary damages].” See Ellis, 657 F.3d at 986-87. The Second and Seventh Circuits have also 

concluded that, under certain circumstances, such incidental monetary relief is appropriate in Rule 

23(b)(2) cases after Wal-Mart. Johnson v. Meriter Health Servs. Emp. Ret. Plan, 702 F.3d 364 

(7th Cir. 2012); Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 775 F.3d 510, 519-20 (2d Cir. 2014). 

Here, the calculation of the monetary relief—the interest paid on rebates for Fee Years 

2012-2015—appears to be “mechanical, formulaic, a task not for a trier of fact but for a computer 

program.” See Johnson, 702 F.3d at 372; see also Amara, 775 F.3d at 519-20 (concluding that 

monetary damages could be awarded for Rule 23(b)(2) class when the damages due each class 

member are “easily capable of computation by means of objective standards” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). Thus, the calculation of monetary relief will not require individualized 

determinations by the Court. In fact, the monetary relief has been distributed. Additionally, the 

monetary relief appears incidental compared to the valuable prospective relief provided. Thus, the 

requirements for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are satisfied.

3. If the Agreement does not become final for any reason, the fact that the Parties were 

willing to stipulate to class certification as part of the Agreement shall have no bearing on, and 

will not be admissible in connection with, the issue of whether a class for Counts II and III should 

be certified in a non-settlement context. The Court’s findings are for purposes of conditionally 

certifying a Settlement Class.

4. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Lum and Andrew Li are able to adequately and fairly represent and 

protect the interests of the Settlement Class and, as such, the Court hereby appoints said Plaintiffs 

as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes only.

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court hereby appoints Nathan J. McGrath and 

Milton L. Chappell of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. as Class 

Counsel for settlement purposes only. 

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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

Preliminary Approval

6. This Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all 

Parties to the Case, including all members of the Settlement Class. 

7. The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement Agreement 

falls within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of 

the Settlement Class. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement (a) is the result of 

serious, informed, non-collusive arm’s length negotiations involving experienced counsel familiar 

with the legal and factual issues of this case and made with the assistance of Mediator Suzanne 

Nusbaum; (b) is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval 

Hearing to the Settlement Class; (c) meets all applicable requirements of law, including Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and (d) is not a finding or admission of liability by Defendants.

Notice

8. The Court finds that the Notice, ECF No. 53-2, as amended by stipulation of the parties 

at the February 25, 2016 Preliminary Approval Hearing (“Amended Notice”) is reasonably 

calculated to, under all circumstances, apprise the members of the Settlement Class of the 

pendency of this action, certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement, and their right to object to the Settlement or to exclude 

themselves from the Settlement Class. The Amended Notice is consistent with the requirements of 

Rule 23 and due process, and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

9. By April 18, 2016, the Amended Notice shall be mailed and emailed to all Settlement 

class members pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Settlement Agreement. Local 521 shall bear the 

costs of and facilitate said distribution of the Amended Notice. On the Settlement website 

described in Section 9(f), Class Counsel shall publish the following pertinent class documents: the 

Amended Complaint, the Settlement Agreement, the motion for settlement class certification and 

related documents, the motion for preliminary approval and related documents, the motion for 

attorney’s fees and costs and related documents, the Amended Notice, and relevant orders related 

to said documents.

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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

10. Local 521 shall insert the appropriate dates into the blank spaces provided in the 

Amended Notice, before causing said Amended Notice to be mailed to settlement class members.

Objections

11. Any Settlement class member may object to the Settlement. Any objection must be in 

writing and should include the objector’s name, address, telephone number, signature, and the 

reason(s) for objecting to the Settlement Agreement. Objectors should also indicate whether the 

objector intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. Objections must be postmarked on or 

before May 18, 2016.

12. All objections must be submitted to the Court on or before the objection deadline either 

by mailing them to Judge Koh’s Case System Administrator at the United States Courthouse, 280 

South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113, or by filing them in person at any location of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

13. Any Settlement class member who fails to timely mail or file a written objection with 

the Court and notice of his or her intent to appear at the Final Approval Hearing as detailed in the 

Amended Notice shall not be permitted to object to the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, 

and shall be foreclosed from seeking any review of the Settlement by appeal or other means and 

shall be deemed to have waived his, her, or its objections and be forever barred from making any 

such objections in the Case or any other action or proceeding.

Final Approval Hearing

14. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on June 30, 2016, at 1:30 

p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, 

CA 95113 to consider: (a) whether the proposed settlement of the Case on the terms and 

conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should 

be given final approval by the Court; (b) whether a final judgment should be entered; and (c) 

whether to award payment of attorney’s fees and expenses to Class Counsel and in what amount.

15. By April 11, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court the motion for attorney’s fees and 

costs, which shall be posted to the settlement website on the date of filing.

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 14-CV-05230-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

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

16. No later than June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their motion for final 

approval, which shall be posted to the settlement website on the date of filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05230-LHK Document 61 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 6