Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05156/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05156-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY KRZESNIAK, individually, on

behalf of all others similarly situated, and on

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CENDANT CORP., CENDANT CAR RENTAL

GROUP, INC., CENDANT CAR RENTAL

OPERATIONS SUPPORT, INC., and BUDGET

RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-05156 MEJ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff Stanley Krzesniak's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Class Notice, filed

November 14, 2007. (Doc. #97.) After reading and considering the arguments presented by the

parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

78. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's

motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a former Station Manager (now known as a Shift Manager, collectively referred to

herein as "SM") at Budget Rent a Car ("Budget"). In addition to individual wrongful discharge and

retaliation claims, Plaintiff contends that Budget's treatment of California SMs violates California

labor laws. Plaintiff alleges that, despite their job title, Budget SMs do not spend more than fifty

percent of their time on discretionary managerial functions, and thus do not meet the criteria for

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

being classified as "exempt" management employees under California law. 

On June 20, 2007, the Court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

("FRCP") 23(b)(3) that includes all SMs in the State of California at any time between December

28, 2001 and the present (the "Class"). The parties met and conferred to compose a class notice, but

have not been able to agree on the terms. As a result of their disagreements, Plaintiff moves for the

Court to adopt his proposed notice. Defendants oppose the motion and request that the Court adopt

their notice in the alternative.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

After a court certifies a class under FRCP 23(b)(3), it must direct to class members the best

notice practicable under the circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The notice must concisely

state in plain easy to understand language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class

certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance

through counsel if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member

who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding

effect of a class judgment on class members under FRCP 23(c)(3). Id. A class notice must only

have "information that a reasonable person would consider to be material in making an informed,

intelligent decision of whether to opt-out or remain a member of the class." In re Nissan Motor

Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1105 (5th Cir. 1977). 

Typically, the plaintiff prepares the notice for the court's review and approval, giving the

defendant the opportunity to object or suggest changes. Harris v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 74

F.R.D. 24, 52 (N.D. Cal. 1977). However, the court is ultimately responsible for directing notice to

the class members and protecting their due process rights to remain in the class or be excluded. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(c).

IV. DISCUSSION

Here, the Court finds that both parties submitted proposed notices that tend to present certain

information in their favor. Rather than use either notice, the Court shall model the notice in this case

after a class notice recently issued by the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson in a similar overtime

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

case. Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 05-2520 TEH (Doc. #130). The Court finds that the Tierno

notice complies with the requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B) and, for purposes of the present case,

provides a balance between Plaintiff and Defendants' proposed notices. The Court shall modify the

Tierno notice as appropriate for the present case, as explained below. First, however, the Court shall

address the outstanding disputes between the parties.

A. Plaintiff's Use of a Federal Judicial Center Sample

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the form of his notice, which he

modeled after the Federal Judicial Center ("FJC") template. Plaintiff argues that the FJC template is

expressly endorsed by the 2003 Advisory Committee Notes to FRCP 23(c). In response, Defendants

argue that (1) the FJC sample notices are not entitled to the same deference as a notice prepared by

the Advisory Committee; (2) Plaintiff's application of the Committee Note drifts too far from the

actual language of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B); (3) the sample notices are merely "helpful starting points,"

and are not intended to serve as substitutes or templates for the actual notices; and (4) Plaintiff

mistakenly assumes that this case is similar to an employment discrimination action.

According to the Advisory Committee Notes, "The federal judicial center has created

illustrative clear-notice forms that provide a helpful starting point for actions similar to those

described in the forms." Adv. Cmte. Notes (2003) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c). Thus, the Court can look

to the FJC template as a starting point, but it need not adopt the template in full. Further, as the

Tierno notice adequately addresses the requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B), the FJC template

proposed by Plaintiff is unnecessary. 

B. Proposed Website

In his notice, Plaintiff proposes a website to publicize the action, tentatively styled

"BudgetManagerClassAction.com." Defendants argue that electronic publication in this case is

excessive and creates risks that outweigh purported benefits. In support of their argument,

Defendants cite Reab v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 623 (D. Colo. 2002). In Reab, the court

found that electronic communication "inherently has the potential to be copied and forwarded to

other people via the internet with commentary that could distort the notice" approved by the court. 

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Id. at 630. However, the concerns the court addressed in Reab are distinguishable in the present

case. First, the plaintiffs in Reab sought to use both electronic mail and an internet website to

distribute notice. Id. Here, Plaintiff does not seek to send notice by email - which the Reab court

singled out as a problematic method of sending notice (Id. at 630-31). Second, although the court in

Reab noted that messages in electronic format could be easily be forwarded to nonclass members

and posted to internet sites (Id. at 631), the same can be said of messages sent by first class mail,

which can easily be scanned and posted to websites.

Because Plaintiff does not seek to send notice by email, the Court finds that the proposed

website will provide an effective way to make substantial information available to class members

while avoiding the issues raised by the court in Reab. Further, other courts have found the use of a

website beneficial as part of a class action notice. See, e.g., Flanagan v. Allstate Insurance Co.,

2007 WL 3085903 at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2007); Schwartz v. TXU Corp., 2005 WL 3148350 at *11 (N.D.

Tex. 2005); In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. ERISA Litigation, 391 F.Supp.2d 844, 848 (N.D.

Cal.,2005). Accordingly, the notice shall contain the BudgetManagerClassAction.com website. 

However, access to the website shall be restricted by requiring class members to enter a unique,

individual password in order to access the website. The password shall be communicated to class

members in the mailed notice itself, and the parties shall jointly determine the password requirement

and how it will be attached to the notice provided with this Order.

C. Identification of Opposing Counsel

Defendants also argue that the notice should identify defense counsel as a matter of basic

fairness. Plaintiff opposes this request. However, while the Court may order a defendant not to

unilaterally contact class members directly before the opt-out period expires, Kleiner v. First Nat'l

Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1202 (11th Cir. 1985), there is nothing that prevents class members

from contacting a defendant's counsel before the expiration of the opt-out period. Until then, the

class members are not represented by plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff cannot "freeze" opposing

counsel's right to communicate. Resnick v. American Dental Ass'n, 95 F.R.D. 372, 376 fn.6 (D.C.

Ill. 1982). Further, the identify of defense counsel is a matter of public record and will be posted on

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the website, at a minimum, via court documents that list defense counsel. Accordingly, out of

fairness, the notice shall identify defense counsel.

D. Inclusion of an Opt-Out Form

Plaintiff excluded an opt-out form from his proposed notice; however, Defendants argue that

the process of opting-out should be no more burdensome than the process of participating in the

case, and therefore the Court should order Plaintiff to include self-addressed, stamped postcards for

opt-outs.

FRCP 23(b)(3) does not explicitly require an opt-out form be included as part of the notice. 

Reviewing the Advisory Committee Notes included with FRCP 23(c)(2)(B), in 2003 the Committee

referred to illustrative clear-notice forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(c)(2)(B) advisory committee's note. The example notice forms provided by the Federal

Judicial Center merely includes language, on the face of the notice, that a class member may decide

to be excluded from the class, and if they wish to do so, they may send a letter to a given address. 

See http://www.fjc.gov/ (Class Action Notices Page). The notice forms do not appear to

contemplate the inclusion of an exclusion notice form. Further, the Court finds that on balance, such

a separate form will "engender confusion" and may encourage class members to "unwittingly opt out

of the class." Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 416, 423 (N.D. Cal. 1988). Accordingly, the notice shall

not include an opt-out form.

E. Disputes Regarding Individual Notice Sections

The Court resolves the remaining disputes as follows.

1) The notice shall include the case caption and be formatted as a judicial document. The Court's

return address shall be included on the envelope containing the notice, and Plaintiff shall use a

postage stamp rather than a postal meter.

2) The notice shall include a balanced presentation of each side's position, including any injunctive

relief sought by Plaintiff, and Defendants' objections thereto. The notice shall not include a specific

reference to managers' time spent renting, cleaning, and moving cars, as these are not the only job

duties at issue.

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3) It is not necessary to inform potential class members of future discovery obligations. "Discovery

of non-named plaintiffs is both rare and usually inappropriate." Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 416,

423 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (citing Wainwright v. Kraftco Corp., 54 F.R.D. 532, 534 (N.D. Ga.1972) and

Fischer v. Wolfinbarger, 55 F.R.D. 129, 132 (W.D. Kent.1971)). While limited discovery may be

necessary in this case, the Court does not wish to dissuade potential class members by informing

them of discovery obligations that may, in fact, not arise.

4) The notice shall include information regarding Plaintiff's individual claims and the potential

conflict of interest they create.

5) The notice shall include language concerning the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and

class members' options of pursuing claims before the DLSE.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's

Motion for Class Notice. The Court directs the parties to use the class notice attached to this Order. 

The Court further ORDERS as follows 

1) By January 10, 2008, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel and the third party

administrator a database containing the names and last known addresses and phone numbers

of all Class Members;

2) By January 25, 2008, the third party administrator shall mail the Class Notice described

herein to all Class Members; and 

3) Plaintiff shall pay the entire cost of giving notice to the class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 6 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

 

STANLEY KRZESNIAK,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-5156 MEJ

v. CLASS ACTION

CENDANT CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants

 /

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF WAGE-AND-HOUR CLASS ACTION

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED

TO: ALL BUDGET RENT-A-CAR STATION MANAGERS AND SHIFT

MANAGERS WHO ARE OR WERE EMPLOYED BY BUDGET IN

CALIFORNIA ON OR AFTER DECEMBER 28, 2001.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a class action lawsuit is now pending in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California, before the Honorable Maria-Elena

James. On June 20, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff Stanley Krzesniak's (“Plaintiff”) motion

to certify a class of all Station Managers and Shift Managers who are or were employed by

Budget Rent-a-Car ("Budget") in California on or after December 28, 2001. On behalf of the

class, Plaintiff contends that Budget Station Managers and Shift Managers are misclassified as

exempt and are owed compensation and penalties with respect to overtime hours, meal

periods and rest breaks, and wage statements. According to Budget's records, you are a

member of this class. You should read this notice carefully.

This notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of any of

the claims or defenses asserted by either side in this litigation. The sole purpose of this notice

is to inform you of the lawsuit so that you can make an informed decision as to whether you

should remain in or opt out of this class action.

I. Nature and Status of the Action

Plaintiff Stanley Krzesniak filed a lawsuit on behalf of all current and former Station

Managers and Shift Managers against Budget. The lawsuit is known as Krzesniak v. Cendant

Corp., Case No. C 05-5156 MEJ. (Cendant Corp. was the parent company of Budget Rent-aCar). The lawsuit alleges that Budget misclassified its California Station Managers and Shift

Managers as exempt from overtime compensation, failed to provide them with meal periods

and rest breaks, and rendered inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks to recover for

the Station Managers and Shift Managers compensation and penalties for overtime hours

allegedly worked by them, meal periods and rest breaks allegedly not provided to them, and

wage statements issued to them that allegedly were not accurate. Plaintiff also seeks an

injunction ordering Budget to classify the Station Managers and Shift Managers as nonexempt and pay them on an hourly basis, or alternatively to change the job duties.

Budget denies Plaintiff's claims. It maintains that Station Managers and Shift

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 7 of 9
Managers perform the duties of exempt managers. Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s

requested injunction to change the job duties of the Station Managers and Shift Managers and

pay tem on an hourly basis, or alternatively to change the job duties. 

In addition to his claims on behalf of the Class, Plaintiff also asserts individual claims

(i.e., not for the Class) for wrongful discharge and retaliation. Defendants also deny

Plaintiff's individual claims, and they contend that his individual claims create a conflict of

interest for the Class.

More information about this lawsuit may be found at the following website:

www.BudgetManagerClassAction.com. 

The Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Defendants is correct. That is not the

subject of this notice.

II. About Class Actions

A class action is a lawsuit in which the claims and rights of many people may be

decided in a single court proceeding. The Plaintiff, acting as the class representative, asserts

claims on behalf of himself and the class. A class action allows the Court to resolve the

claims of all the class members at the same time. A class member is bound by the

determination or judgment entered in the case, whether the class wins or loses, and may not

file his or her own lawsuit over the same claims that were decided in the class action.

The Court has appointed Plaintiff's lawyers, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, as

class counsel. Class counsel are handling this case on a contingency-fee basis. That means

that if there is a recovery for the class, they will claim a share of the recovery as their

attorneys' fees (which would be subject to Court approval). As a class member, you also have

the right to retain your own lawyer at your own expense. 

III. Procedures for Opting Out of the Class

If you are or were employed by Budget within the State of California as a Station

Manager or Shift Manager at any time on or after December 28, 2001, you are automatically

included in the class. You have a right to remain in the class or to opt out of the class. If you

wish to remain in the class, you do not need to take any action at this time.

If you remain in the class, and do not request exclusion (as explained below), you will

be bound by the determinations or judgments in the litigation, whether favorable or

unfavorable to the Class, including any judgment ultimately rendered in the action. You may

also be entitled to participate in any monetary recovery obtained in this litigation, whether at

trial or through settlement. 

If you are a class member who is concerned that Plaintiff's individual claims create a

conflict of interest for the Class, you may also decide to opt out of the Class. Although the

Court has made no finding that Plaintiff's individual claims create a conflict of interest, it

permitted the class action claims and Plaintiff's individual claims to go forward concurrently

only if there is an opt out provision which can be exercised by any individual class member

who feels his or her interests are not adequately protected by the class representative.

If you wish to be excluded from this Class, you must send an “Exclusion Request” in

the form of a letter sent by mail, stating that you want to be excluded from Krzesniak v.

Cendant, Case No. Civ. 05-5156 MEJ. Be sure to include your name, address, and telephone

number, and sign the letter. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked by March

21, 2008, to the Claims Administrator hired by the parties at the following address:

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 8 of 9
Budget Rent A Car System Class Action Lawsuit

c/o CPT Group

16630 Aston Street

Irvine CA 92606

You may also get an Exclusion Request form at 

www.BudgetManagerClassAction.com. 

If you timely request exclusion from the Class, you will: (1) be excluded from the

Class; (2) not be bound by any determination or judgment entered in the litigation; (3) not

participate in any recovery obtained through trial or settlement in this litigation; and (4) not be

precluded, by reason of your decision to request exclusion from the Class, from otherwise

prosecuting an individual action, if timely.

You may investigate the pursuit of an individual claim before California's Labor

Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"). Information

regarding how to file claims with the DLSE and representation by the DLSE may be found at

www.dir.ca.gov/dlse.

IV. No Effect on Your Current Employment with Budget

If you are currently employed by Budget, your decision whether or not to remain in

the Class will have no bearing whatsoever upon your employment with Budget. Budget will

not discriminate, retaliate against, or treat any class member adversely based on his or her

decision whether or not to remain in the Class. If you are a current Budget employee and feel

that you are being treated adversely based upon your decision whether or not to remain in the

Class, you should contact your human resources representative or the Plaintiff's attorneys

(below) immediately.

V. Additional Information

The information contained in this Notice is only a summary of the litigation. For more

detailed information, you may review the complete court files of this case at the office of the

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, during regular business hours. 

You may also visit the www.BudgetManagerClassAction.com website. Additionally, more

detailed information regarding the litigation or this notice may also be obtained from Class

Counsel or the attorneys for Defendants.

Class Counsel: Counsel for Defendants:

Steven Tindall, Esq. Michael Hoffman

Peter Rukin, Esq. Littler Mendelson

Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP 650 California Street, 20th Floor

100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, California 94108

San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-1940

Telephone: 415-421-1800

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS LAWSUIT.

Dated: December 17, 2007 ____________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 109 Filed 12/17/07 Page 9 of 9