Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03275/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03275-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

David Yeremian (SBN 226337) 

David@yeremianlaw.com 

Roman Shkodnik (SBN 285152) 

roman@yeremianlaw.com 

535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 

Glendale, California 91203 

Telephone: (818) 230-8380 

Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 

UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 

Walter Haines (SBN 71075) 

whaines@uelg.com 

5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 

Huntington Beach, CA 92649 

Telephone: (310) 652-2242 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Fred Tollini, 

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

 

FRED TOLLINI, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CGI FEDERAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS 

INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 18-cv-03275-MMC 

CLASS ACTION 

[Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable 

Maxine M. Chesney] 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S REVISED UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, 

APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE, AND 

SETTING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING 

[Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion; 

Memorandum; and Supplemental Declaration of 

David Yeremian] 

Complaint Filed: April 30, 2018 

FAC Filed: July 23, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 10
- 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

ORDER 

 On November 21, 2019, plaintiff Fred Tollini (“plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and the 

similarly situated employees of defendant CGI FEDERAL INC., a Delaware Corporation 

(“defendant”) (together, the “parties”), filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the parties’ 

Stipulation of Settlement and Release of the above-titled class and collective action pursuant to 

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C section 201, et seq. At a hearing 

on January 3, 2020, the Court declined, at that time, to grant the relief sought, and afforded the 

parties leave to revise the motion and supplement their submissions. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s revised motion for preliminary approval, filed April 8, 

2020. By said motion, plaintiff, without opposition by defendant, seeks an Order (1) certifying, for 

settlement purposes only, the class and collective under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule 23”) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); (2) preliminarily approving the parties’ Stipulation of 

Settlement and Release (Doc. No. 40-2) and Addendum to Settlement Agreement and Release of 

Claims (Doc. No. 51-1) (collectively, the “Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”); (3) appointing 

plaintiff Fred Tollini as the representative for the Settlement Class Members, and Class Counsel 

David Yeremian and Roman Shkodnik of David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. as counsel for the 

Settlement Class Members; (4) approving the parties’ proposed Class Notice; and (5) scheduling a 

hearing on the final approval of the Settlement and approval of the application of Class Counsel and 

plaintiff for their requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and service award.1

The Court’s scrutiny of the proposed settlement is as rigorous at the preliminary approval 

stage as at the final approval stage. See Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1036-37 (N.D. 

Cal. 2016). Having considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the arguments of 

counsel, and the law, the Court now enters this Preliminary Approval Order and FINDS, 

CONCLUDES, and ORDERS as follows: 

1

 Initially, by said motion, plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Class Action 

Complaint, for the purpose of adding a cause of action for rest-break liability under California 

Labor Code § 226.7 and a cause of action for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under 

California Labor Code § 2802. On May 15, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion, 

and, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, denied the request to amend. 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 10
- 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

1. The Court hereby conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only and pursuant 

to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), 

the following class and collective: all current and former non-exempt individuals employed by 

defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from April 30, 2014 through 

May 27, 2019 (“Settlement Class”). The Settlement Class will not include any person who 

previously settled or released the released claims set forth in Section 18 of the Settlement 

Agreement, or any other person who previously was paid or received awards through civil or 

administrative actions for the released claims covered by this Settlement. 

2. The Court conditionally finds that, solely for the purposes of approving this 

Settlement and for no other purpose and with no other effect on this litigation, the Settlement 

Class meets the requirements for certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Court finds: (a) the Settlement Class Members are 

ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions 

of law or fact common to the Settlement Class Members; (c) certain claims of plaintiff Fred 

Tollini are typical of the claims of Settlement Class Members; (d) plaintiff and Class Counsel will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class Members; (e) individualized 

issues do not predominate over the issues of law and fact that are common to the class as a whole. 

The principal issues of controversy are whether class and collective members received all wages 

and breaks. These issues are suitable for common adjudication because all Settlement Class 

Members were subject to the same or similar policies and practices of not being paid for nonproductive time, and all Settlement Class Members were subject to uniform meal break policies 

and practices; and (f) a class action is superior to the other available methods for an efficient 

resolution of this controversy in the context of settlement 

3. The Court conditionally finds that, solely for the purposes of approving this 

Settlement and for no other purpose and with no other effect on this litigation, the Settlement 

Class meets the requirements for certification as a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”). “Plaintiff need not show that his position is or was identical to the putative class 

members' positions; a class may be certified under the FLSA if the named plaintiff can show that 

his position was or is similar to those of the absent class members.” Tijero v. Aaron Brothers, Inc.

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 10
- 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

2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 178511 (N.D. Cal. 2013) at *20-21 (internal quotation and citation omitted.) 

In Tijero, supra, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis at *22, the Court held that by meeting the more stringent 

requirements for certification under Rule 23, “the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently 

shown that potential collective action members are ‘similarly situated’ within the meaning of the 

FLSA for purposes of conditional certification.” Likewise, in the instant case, as plaintiff 

contends in his Revised Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement 

and Release, the Settlement Class has met the requirements under Rule 23 and thus should be 

granted conditional certification as a collective under the FLSA. 

4. Considering the factors set forth in In re Mego Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F. 

3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000) and Rule 23(e)(2), and for the reasons stated on the record at the 

hearing on January 3, 2020, the Court further finds that, for purposes of preliminary approval, the 

proposed Settlement Agreement is fair. 

5. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement Agreement is the result 

of arms-length negotiations conducted after Class Counsel had adequately investigated the claims 

and become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. The assistance of an 

experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the Court’s conclusion that the proposed 

settlement is non-collusive. “The Court further finds, on a preliminary basis, that although the 

settlement agreement contains a clear sailing provision, the requested attorney’s fees and costs are 

not unreasonably high, and, given that unclaimed funds do not revert to defendant, the settlement 

agreement withstands the “higher level of scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of 

interest than is ordinarily required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court’s approval as fair.” 

See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir. 2011). 

6. The Court therefore finds on a preliminary basis that the proposed terms of the 

Settlement Agreement are reasonable, and grants preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement. 

7. The Court conditionally appoints plaintiff Fred Tollini as Class Representative to 

represent the Settlement Class Members for settlement purposes only. 

8. The Court conditionally appoints David Yeremian, Esq. and Roman Shkodnik, Esq. 

of David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., as Class Counsel. 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 10
- 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

9. The Court appoints ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator and 

preliminarily approves the allocated Settlement Administration expenses. The Settlement 

Administrator will prepare a final version of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed 

Settlement (hereinafter the “Class Notice”), a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporating into 

it the relevant dates and deadlines set forth herein, and will carry out the notice procedures set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement and herein. 

10. ILYM Group, Inc. shall, as set forth in Section 15(e) of the Settlement Agreement, 

provide to all parties’ counsel a written report noting the number of Class Notices sent, the number 

which were returned as undeliverable, and the number of valid Opt Outs by Class Members. In 

addition, said report shall include, to the extent practicable, (1) the number of email notices that 

were opened and (2) the number of email notices that were returned as undeliverable. 

11. The Court concludes that the Class Notice as well as the procedure set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement for providing notice to the Settlement Class Members, will provide the best 

notice practicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Class Notice fairly, plainly, 

accurately, and reasonably informs the Settlement Class Members of: (a) the nature of the Action, 

the definition of the Settlement Class, the identity of Class Counsel, and the essential terms of the 

Settlement Agreement, including the plan of allocation; (b) plaintiff and Class Counsel’s 

applications for the plaintiff’s Class Representative enhancement reward and Class Counsel’s 

request for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; (c) how to participate in and receive proceeds under 

the Settlement; (d) how to object to or request exclusion from the Settlement; (e) how to obtain 

additional information regarding the Action and the Settlement; and (f) the binding nature of the 

settlement for those who do not opt out. The Court thus finds that the notice requirements for class 

and collective actions are satisfied. 

12. Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to final approval of the 

Settlement or Class Counsel’s motion for fees and costs must submit an objection in writing to the 

Settlement Administrator by August 7, 2020, and also submit it to the Court by that date, either by 

mailing it to the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, California, 94102, or by filing it in person at any 

location of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Any Class Member or 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 10
- 6 - 

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

purported Class Member who fails to submit a timely written objection in both manners described 

above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from making any 

objection to the Settlement and from filing any appeal from any Final Order and Judgment issued 

by the Court. 

13. The Parties and Settlement Administrator are ordered to provide notice of the 

settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and in conformity with this Order, 

including: 

a) No more than ten (10) calendar days after entry of the Preliminary Approval 

Order, defendant shall provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class 

Members’ Information for purposes of sending the Class Notice to the 

Settlement Class Members. 

b) No more than seven (7) calendar days after defendant provides the 

Settlement Class data to the Settlement Administrator, the Settlement 

Administrator shall mail the Class Notice to the Class Members at their lastknown addresses provided by defendant. This mailing shall be made via 

first class mail through the U.S. Postal Service. Prior to the mailing, the 

Settlement Administrator shall run the addresses provided through the U.S. 

Postal Service’s National Change of Address database and update the last 

known addresses as necessary. 

c) In addition, by the same date as set forth in section 13(b), the Class Notice 

shall be emailed by the Settlement Administrator to Class Members for 

which defendant has a last known email address. 

d) If any Class Notice mailed to any Settlement Class Member is returned, the 

Settlement Administrator shall perform one skip trace to locate a current 

address and, if a current address is located, shall update the Settlement 

Class Member’s address and promptly re-mail the Class Notice. If any 

Class Notice is returned to the Settlement Administrator with a forwarding 

address, the Settlement Administrator shall forward the postal mailing to 

that address. 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 10
- 7 - 

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

e) In the event that any Class Notice is returned as undeliverable a second 

time, no further postal mailing shall be required. The re-mailing of the Class 

Notice will not extend the deadline for objecting to or requesting exclusion 

from the Settlement. 

f) The Class Notice will inform the Settlement Class Members that unless they 

file a request to be excluded from the Settlement by August 7, 2020: they 

will be bound by the Settlement and its Released Claims; they will receive 

an individual settlement amount under the Agreement; they will be bound 

by the release of Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims; and if they 

cash their Individual Settlement Payment check, they will thereby consent 

to the release of claims asserted under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, et seq., 

including claims for wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and 

costs that are factually and reasonably related to claims in the First 

Amended Complaint. 

g) The Class Notice will also inform all Settlement Class Members that 

cashing their individual settlement payment checks amounts to opting into 

the FLSA Collective. 

h) The Class Notice will inform the Settlement Class Members of their right to 

opt-out of the Settlement and the procedure for doing so. 

i) The Class Notice will inform the Settlement Class Members of their right to 

object to the Settlement and the procedure for doing so. 

j) The Class Notice shall include a statement as to the number of Workweeks 

attributable to each Settlement Class Member, as well as an explanation for 

how the Workweeks will be used to calculate the individual settlement 

amounts. The Class Notice shall also inform the Settlement Class Members 

of their right to dispute the number of Workweeks attributed to them, as 

well as the procedure for doing so. 

14. Plaintiff has provided notice of the settlement to the California Labor and 

Workforce Development Agency, satisfying the requirements of PAGA. 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 10
- 8 - 

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

15. The notice of settlement served by defendant on the U.S. and applicable state 

Attorneys General satisfies the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act. 

16. Upon the effective date of the settlement agreement, defined as the date after any 

and all appeals have been resolved, plaintiff and each member of the Settlement Class shall be 

deemed to have released defendant and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, predecessor or successor, 

and any and all agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers, and attorneys thereof (the 

“Releasees”), from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, 

penalties, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, actions, or causes of action contingent or 

accrued for any and all claims that were asserted in the original and amended complaints filed in 

the Lawsuit, or any claims, known or unknown, which could have been asserted based on the 

allegations in the original and amended complaints filed in the Lawsuit, including, without 

limitation, any claims under federal and state law, claims for unpaid wages, claims for unpaid 

minimum wages, claims for unpaid overtime, claims for missed meal breaks, claims for meal 

break penalties, claims for liquidated damages, claims for unlawful deductions from wages, claims 

for conversion of wages, claims for record-keeping violations, claims for wage-statement 

penalties, claims for “waiting time” penalties, claims of late/untimely payment of wages, and 

claims under the applicable California Wage Orders and the California Labor Code, as well as 

claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and claims for penalties 

pursuant to Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (the PAGA) based on alleged violations of the 

applicable Wage Orders and Labor Code provisions, including claims for restitution and other 

equitable relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages, or penalties, claims under the FLSA, and 

any other benefit claimed on account of the allegations asserted or that could have been asserted in 

the complaints filed in the Lawsuit (the “Released Claims”). 

17. The Settlement Agreement is expressly conditioned upon the release by all 

Settlement Class Members of any claim under Labor Code section 2698, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 216, et seq. as to the released claims set forth above, and upon covenants by all Settlement 

Class Members that they will not participate in any proceeding seeking damages or penalties as to 

all the Released Claims set forth above. 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 10
- 9 - 

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

18. All proceedings and all litigation of the above-titled action, other than those 

pertaining to the administration of the Settlement, are stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing. 

19. Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members are prohibited from prosecuting against 

defendant or the Releasees, defined in Section 18 of the settlement agreement, any claims to be 

released under the Settlement Agreement pending the Final Approval Hearing, unless and until the 

class member has opted out of the Settlement Class. 

20. The preliminary approval of the Settlement, certification of the Settlement Class 

Members, and all actions associated with them, are undertaken on the condition that they shall be 

vacated if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or disapproved in whole or in part by the Court, 

or any appellate court, in which event the Settlement Agreement and the fact that it was entered 

into shall not be offered, received, or construed as an admission or as evidence for any purpose, 

including but not limited to an admission by any party of liability or non-liability or of the 

certifiability of a litigation class or the appropriateness of maintaining a representative action. 

21. In the event the Settlement is not finally approved, or otherwise does not become 

effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Order shall be rendered 

null and void and shall be vacated, and the Parties shall revert to their respective positions as of 

before entering into the Settlement Agreement. The Court’s findings are for purposes of certifying 

a settlement class and to preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement and, if the Settlement is 

not finally approved, will not have any claim or issue preclusion or estoppel effect in this or any 

other action against defendant. 

22. On September 4, 2020, 9:00 a.m., the Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing, 

at which it will make a determination on: (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) the amount of attorneys’ fees and 

costs that should be awarded to Class Counsel; (iii) the amount of the enhancement award that the 

plaintiff as Class Representative should receive; and (iv) Settlement Administration costs. The 

Court reserves the right to adjust the date of the Final Approval Hearing and related deadlines 

without further notice to the Settlement Class Members. 

23. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and Class Counsel’s 

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, will also be heard on September 4 at 9:00 a.m., 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

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

and the Parties and the Settlement Administrator will comply with the following schedule for the 

Settlement Administration and final approval process: 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 22, 2020 _____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

 JUDGE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Due Date Activity 

June 1, 2020 Deadline for defendant to provide the Settlement Class information 

to the Settlement Administrator. 

June 8, 2020 Deadline for ILYM Group, Inc. to mail and email the Class Notice 

to the Settlement Class Members. 

June 22, 2020 Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion for Approval of 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Award 

(“Fees Motion”) and Declaration from Settlement Administrator, 

Class Representative, and Class Counsel in support thereof. 

August 7, 2020 Deadline for the Settlement Class Members to Object to the 

Settlement 

August 7, 2020 Deadline for the Settlement Class Members to submit an opt-out 

request. 

August 7, 2020 Deadline for the Settlement Class Members to dispute the number of 

Workweeks attributed to them. 

August 14, 2020 Deadline for Settlement Administrator to provide to counsel for the 

parties the written report regarding notice, opt-outs, and objections. 

August 21, 2020 Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion for Final Approval of the 

Settlement, Declaration from Settlement Administrator, and 

Supplemental Documents for Fees Motion. 

Deadline for the parties to file any responses to objections. 

September 4, 2020 Date of Final Approval Hearing 

Case 3:18-cv-03275-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/22/20 Page 10 of 10