Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04062/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04062-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCIEANN TALAMANTES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04062-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

DKT. NO. 107

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective 

Action Settlement (“Motion”) and the pertinent materials filed with that motion. For good cause 

shown, and as more fully explained below, the Motion is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS as 

follows:

1. Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Classes.

California Rule 23 Class. For the purposes of settlement only, the Court preliminarily 

finds that the proposed California Rule 23 Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement between 

the Parties (the “Agreement”), meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court certifies for settlement purposes only 

the following proposed California Rule 23 Class:

All individuals who are identified by Defendant as having worked as 

a Home Depot Business Development Representative for PPG 

Industries, Inc. and/or any subsidiary (including PPG Architectural 

Finishes, Inc.) and or any predecessor (including Akzo Nobel Paints 

LLC) in California during any workweek from September 3, 2009 

through March 31, 2013, excluding, however, any member of the 

FLSA Class.

Case 3:13-cv-04062-WHO Document 113 Filed 10/16/15 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

The California Rule 23 Class Members are identified by name in Exhibit B of the Agreement. Not 

later than seven (7) days after the date of this Order, Defendant will provide the Claims 

Administrator with an Excel chart listing the names and last known addresses of the California

Rule 23 Class Members.

FLSA Class. For purposes of the Agreement, the “FLSA Class” is comprised of the 

Named Plaintiffs and those other individuals who filed (and did not withdraw) written consents to 

join this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA Class Members are identified by name 

in Exhibit A of the Agreement. Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel represented that they were 

fully authorized to enter into the Agreement and to bind the FLSA Class Members to the terms 

and conditions of this Agreement.

2. Nullification. This Order will be null and void and of no force or effect, and this 

action will proceed as though a class had never been certified, if the Settlement Agreement is not 

finally approved by the Court or if the Settlement Agreement, after being finally approved by the 

Court, is invalidated on appeal or terminated pursuant to its own terms.

3. Class Representatives. With respect to the California Rule 23 Class, the Court 

grants preliminary approval to Named Plaintiffs Lucieann Talamantes, Robert Cahigal, Hector 

Garcia, Dewey Takagi, and Tina Diemer, to serve as the Class Representatives. 

4. Class Counsel. The Court conditionally appoints as Class Counsel for the 

California Rule 23 Class Laura L. Ho, Byron Goldstein, William C. Jhaveri-Weeks, of the law 

firm of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612) 

and Bruce Fox and Andrew Horowitz of the law firm of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and 

Hippel LLC (BNY Mellon Center, 500 Grant Street, Suite 5240, Pittsburgh, PA 15219). 

5. Preliminary Approval of the Agreement. The proposed settlement set forth in 

the Agreement appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable and adequate and is 

therefore preliminarily approved subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval 

Case 3:13-cv-04062-WHO Document 113 Filed 10/16/15 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

Hearing, as provided in Paragraph 7 below. The Notice of the proposed Settlement should be 

given as provided in the Settlement Agreement and set forth in Paragraph 8 below. 

6. Claims Administrator. KCC Class Action Services, LLC (the “Claims 

Administrator”), is approved as administrator of the claims process as set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement.

7. Fairness Hearing. Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

Fairness Hearing will be held on January 6, 2016 at 2:00 PM to consider final approval of the 

Agreement. The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but 

the Final Approval Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice to 

the Class Members other than that which may be posted by the Court.

8. Notice to the California Rule 23 Class. The Notice of Proposed Settlement of 

Class Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing (the “Notice”) attached as Exhibit E to the Agreement 

is approved. The Court orders that the Claims Administrator mail the Notice Materials as set forth 

in the Agreement to the members of the California Rule 23 Class who are not already a Named or 

Opt-in Plaintiff as listed on Exhibit A of the Agreement. 

9. Exclusion from the Settlement. Any member of the California Rule 23 Class who 

is not already a Named or Opt-in Plaintiff as listed on Exhibit A of the Agreement, who wishes to 

not participate in the settlement may request exclusion from the class by submitting a signed 

request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator. To be effective, such request for exclusion 

must include the individual’s name and an unequivocal statement that the individual requests to be 

excluded from the class, and it must be post-marked within thirty (30) days following the date of 

the initial mailing of the Rule 23 Notice Packet.

10. Objections. Any California Rule 23 Class Members, who are not already a Named 

or Opt-in Plaintiff as listed on Exhibit A, who wish to present objections to the proposed 

settlement at the Fairness Hearing may do so first in writing. Such objections must (a) clearly 

Case 3:13-cv-04062-WHO Document 113 Filed 10/16/15 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

identify the case name and number (Talamantes et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case Number 3:13-

cv-04062-WHO), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, or by filing 

them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before (30) days after the initial mailing of the 

Notice by the Claims Administrator.

An objector who timely submits a written objection may appear at the Fairness Hearing 

either in person or through counsel hired by the objector. An objector may withdraw his or her 

objections at any time. Any California Rule 23 Class Member who requests exclusion from the 

class may not submit objections to the settlement. The Parties may file with the Court written 

responses to any filed objections no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the Fairness 

Hearing.

11. At least 14 days before the deadline to object to or opt out of the Settlement, Class 

Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and class representative enhancements.

12. Effect of the Agreement. All Named and Opt-in Plaintiffs shall be bound by the 

terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement (if the Settlement Agreement is finally 

approved by the Court). All members of the California Rule 23 Class who do not timely and 

properly exclude themselves from the class will be bound conclusively by all of the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement, if finally approved, and by any judgment entered upon final approval. 

Class Counsel will file returned exclusion statements with the Court as set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

13. Voiding the Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, if 20% or more of 

the members of the California Rule 23 Class elect to be excluded from the California Rule 23 

Class, Defendant will have the right, in its sole discretion, to void this Settlement Agreement by 

filing with the Court a notice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If Defendant files a timely 

Case 3:13-cv-04062-WHO Document 113 Filed 10/16/15 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

notice, then this Settlement Agreement becomes null and void and this action will resume as it 

existed immediately prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement.

14. Order for Settlement Purposes. The findings and rulings in this Order are made 

for the purposes of settlement only and may not be cited or otherwise used to support the 

certification of any contested class or subclass in this action or any other action.

15. Stay. All proceedings in this action, other than such proceedings as may be 

necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Agreement, are stayed and suspended until 

further order of the Court. 

16. Use of Agreement and Ancillary Items. Neither the Agreement (whether or not it 

is finally approved), nor any ancillary documents, actions, statements, or filings in furtherance of 

settlement (including matters associated with the mediation) will be admissible or offered into 

evidence in this action or any related or similar action for the purposes of establishing, supporting, 

or defending against any claims that were raised or could have been raised in this action or are 

similar to such claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 16, 2015

Hon. William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04062-WHO Document 113 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 5