Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04656/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04656-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

BHANU VIKRAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04656-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Re: Dkt. No. 47

On December 4, 2018, Plaintiff Bhanu Vikram filed a motion for preliminary approval of a 

class settlement. (Dkt. No. 47.) The only claim being settled involves "Comm" payments, or the 

"bonus paid to drivers required to lift assist [sic] handicapped children." (Dkt. No. 52 at 2, 7.) 

Because the operative complaint contained no facts related to "Comm" payments, lift payments, or 

bonuses in assisting handicapped children, the Court required supplemental briefing regarding 

how the Court could approve a settlement of claims not alleged in the operative complaint. (Dkt. 

No. 53 at 1-2.)

On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief, explaining that the "Comm" and 

lift payments were the incentive compensation generally alleged in the complaint. (Dkt. No. 54 at 

1.) Per the complaint, this incentive compensation was paid when employees met various 

performance goals set by Defendant. (FAC ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 37.) The operative complaint, however, 

contains no specific facts about the incentive compensation, such that there was notice that the 

"Comm" and lift payments at issue are a type of incentive compensation.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which shall 

contain facts specific to the claims being settled, including the "Comm" and lift payments. The 

amended complaint shall not remove allegations or claims that are not being settled, as Rule 23(e) 

Case 4:17-cv-04656-KAW Document 55 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 2
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

"requires courts to approve the proposed voluntary dismissal of class claims," even when prior to 

class certification. Gonzalez v. Fallanghina, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-1832-MEJ, 2017 WL 1374582, 

at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017); Lyons v. Bank of Am., N.A., Case No. 11-cv-1232-CW, 2012 WL 

5940846, at *1 n.1 ("Courts in this district have expressed some uncertainty about whether Rule 

23(e) still applies to pre-certification settlement proposals in the wake of the 2003 amendments to 

the rule but have generally assumed that it does"). Removing the claims not being settled would 

be akin to dismissing the claims, which requires court approval.1

Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this order. The 

hearing on the motion for preliminary approval is CONTINUED to March 7, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 At the preliminary approval hearing, the parties must be prepared to address whether there would 

be possible prejudice from voluntary dismissal of the class claims. See Diaz v. Tr. Territory of 

Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989) (requiring that the courts consider three factors 

in determining whether there is prejudice).

Case 4:17-cv-04656-KAW Document 55 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 2