Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01211-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION

JEROME DAVIS and PRISCILLA 

HUMPHREY et al, individually and 

on behalf of other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC., 

a New York corporation doing 

business as Famous Footwear, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

(Docs. 52 and 63)

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 6
Page 1

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

On June 4, 2013, Plaintiffs Jerome Davis and Priscilla Humphrey, individually 

and on behalf of others similarly situated, initiated this class action in the Merced 

Superior Court alleging various state law wage and hour violations against Defendant 

Brown Shoe Company, Inc. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2-31). On August 2, 2013, Defendants 

removed this case to this Court claiming federal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). (Doc. 1, pg. 1).

On February 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement. (Doc. 52). Defendant filed a Joinder to the Motion on March 9, 

2015. (Doc. 54). On April 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and ordered 

supplemental briefing and modifications to the preliminary settlement agreement. (Doc. 

57). The parties filed the supplemental materials and amendments on May 1, 2015.

(Doc. 62).

On May 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement 

be granted. (Doc. 63). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all of the 

parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. 

Both parties have filed statements of non-opposition to the Findings and 

Recommendations. (Docs. 63 and 64). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and 

proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and 

Recommendations dated May 7, 2015 (Doc. 63), are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Motion 

for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED, subject to the following 

findings and orders:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the 

Settlement Agreement, and all terms defined therein shall have the same 

meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 6
Page 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

2. For clarity, the term “Defendant” means BG Retail, LLC 

d/b/a/ Famous Footwear, erroneously sued as Brown Shoe Company, Inc.

3. The Settlement Class shall be conditionally certified for 

settlement purposes only and shall consist of all persons who are or were 

employed by Defendant in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position in any of 

Defendant’s California Famous Footwear retail locations from June 4, 

2009, until the date of Preliminary Approval. 

4. The class action settlement set forth in the Class Action 

Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”), entered 

into among the Parties and their counsel, is preliminarily approved as it 

appears to be proper, to fall within the range of reasonableness, to be the 

product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, to treat all Class 

Members fairly, and to be presumptively valid, subject only to any 

objections that may be raised at or before the final approval hearing. The 

Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted extensive 

investigation and research, and that they were able to reasonably evaluate 

Plaintiffs’ position and the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and 

the ability to certify them. Plaintiffs have provided the Court with enough 

information about the nature and magnitude of the claims being settled, as 

well as the impediments to recovery, to make an independent assessment 

of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed. 

5. The Court also finds that settlement now will avoid 

additional and potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and 

risks if the Parties were to continue to litigate the action.

6. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, 

including all the terms and conditions set forth therein and the Class 

Settlement Amount and allocation of payments. 

7. The rights of any potential dissenters to the proposed 

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 6
Page 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

Settlement are adequately protected in that they may exclude themselves 

from the Settlement and proceed with any alleged claims they may have 

against Defendant, or they may object to the Settlement and appear before 

this Court. However, to do so they must follow the procedures outlined in 

the Settlement Agreement and Notice of Class Action Settlement. Failure 

to follow the procedures outlined in the Settlement Agreement and Notice 

of Class Action Settlement for making objections shall result in waiver and 

the objector shall be forever foreclosed from challenging any of the terms 

of the Settlement. 

8. By stipulation of the Parties, the Court hereby grants 

Plaintiffs leave to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint, which 

adds Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell as additional named plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs are to file the Second Amended Complaint within two days of 

this Order. (Doc. 62, pgs. 45-75). By stipulation of the Parties, Defendant 

shall not be required to file a responsive pleading to the Second Amended 

Complaint, rather, Defendant’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint 

shall be deemed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. 

9. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed 

Notice of Class Action Settlement and Claim Form (“Notice Packet”). 

(Doc. 62. pg. 43).

10. The Court directs the mailing, by First-Class U.S. mail, of 

the Notice Packets to Class Members in accordance with the schedule set 

forth below and the other procedures described in the Settlement 

Agreement. The Court finds that the method selected for communicating 

the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement to Class Members is 

the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constitutes due and 

sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice, and thereby satisfies due 

process. 

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 6
Page 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

11. The Court appoints Jerome Davis, Priscilla Humphrey, 

Jennifer Carrow, and Sabrina Rowell as the Class Representatives for the 

Settlement Class conditionally certified by this Order. The Court appoints 

Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel. The Court finds that counsel have 

demonstrable experience litigating, certifying, and settling class actions, 

and will serve as adequate counsel for the Class conditionally certified by 

this Order.

12. The Court approves and appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the 

Claims Administrator, whose fees and expenses shall not exceed $60,000. 

13. The following dates shall govern for purposes of this 

Settlement:

Date Event

May 18, 2015 (or not later than 10 calendar 

days after the Court grants preliminary 

approval of the Settlement Agreement, if 

later)

Last day for Defendant to produce the class 

list to the Claims Administrator.

May 28, 2015 (or not later than 10 calendar 

days after the Defendant produces the class 

list, if later)

Last day for the Claims Administrator to 

mail Notice Packets to all Class Members.

June 26, 2015 (or not later than 30 calendar 

days after the Claims Administrator mails 

the Notice Packets, if later)

Last day for the Claims Administrator to 

mail postcard reminders to non-responsive 

Class Members.

July 16, 2015 Last day for Class Counsel to file the

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and

Class Representative Incentive Awards.

July 27, 2015 (or not later than 60 calendar 

days after the Claims Administrator mails 

the Notice Packets, if later)

Last day for Class Members to mail Claim 

Forms, Requests for Exclusion, or 

Objections to the Settlement.

August 14, 2015 Last day for Plaintiffs to file the Motion for 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

September 11, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom 8, before Magistrate Judge 

Barbara A. McAuliffe

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Action Settlement and Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class 

Representative Enhancement Payments.

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 5 of 6
Page 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

The Court expressly reserves the right to continue or adjourn the final approval 

hearing for time to time without further notice to the Class Members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01211-LJO-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/12/15 Page 6 of 6