Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01678/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01678-0/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

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CLARK, and LUCINDA

PROUTY, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA)

CLASS ACTION

ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL 

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for Final Approval of

the Class Action Settlement (Doc. # 57).

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2005, Defendant Michaels Stores removed Plaintiffs’ Class

Action Complaint to this Court from the California State Superior Court. (Doc. #

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 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

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

-1-

1). Thereafter, the Court resolved certain discovery disputes and the parties

appeared at a number of conferences before the Honorable Jan M. Adler, United

States Magistrate Judge. (Docs. # 8-29). On or before October 24, 2006, the

parties settled the case. (Doc. # 30).

On March 13, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for Preliminary Approval

of the Class Action Settlement. (Doc. # 38). On April 23, 2007, the parties

appeared before the Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge, to

argue in support of their motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action

Settlement. (Doc. # 46). Thereafter, on April 24, 2007, the Court ordered the

parties to submit additional briefing with respect to class certification (Doc. # 48),

and on May 2, 2007, the parties filed requested supplemental briefing and

additional supporting declarations. (Docs. # 49, 50). On May 23, 2007, and after

reviewing the relevant case law and the parties’ moving papers and supporting

declarations, the Court granted the parties motion for Preliminary Approval of the

Class Action Settlement and conditionally certified the case as a class action. 

(Doc. # 54).

On October 3, 2007, the parties filed the presently pending motion for Final

Approval of the Class Action Settlement (Doc. # 57). In support of the motion, the

parties submitted substantial briefing, exhibits, and declarations. (Docs. # 57-58).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The Ninth Circuit has declared that a strong judicial policy favors

settlement of class actions.” West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. CIV S-04-0438

WBS GGH, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42074, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2006) (citing

Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). However,

when presented with a motion to finally approve a class action settlement, “judges

have the responsibility of ensuring fairness to all members of the class presented

for certification.” Staton v. Boeing, Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 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

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

-2-

Particularly “in the context of a case in which the parties reach a settlement

agreement prior to class certification, courts must peruse the proposed compromise

to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the settlement.” 

Id. In determining whether to approve a class action settlement, a district court

must (1) “assess whether a class exists,” and (2) “carefully consider ‘whether a

proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable,’ recognizing

that ‘[i]t is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component

parts, that must be examined for overall fairness . . . .’” Id. (citing Hanlon v.

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

ORDER

This matter having come before this Court for hearing for final approval of

the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Order of

Preliminary Approval, and due and adequate notice having been given as required

in said Order, and the Court having carefully considered all papers filed and

proceedings had herein and otherwise being fully informed of the premises and

good cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED THAT:

1. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was entered into in

good faith and that it constitutes a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise

between the Parties.

2. The Court finds and finally certifies the proposed Class for the purposes

of this settlement pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, and in conformance with this

Court’s Order of conditional certification and the parties supplemental briefing on

class certification. See (Docs. 49, 54).

3. If this Judgment and the settlement do not become final and effective

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 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

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

-3-

in accord with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then this Judgment and all

orders entered in connection therewith shall be deemed null and void and shall be

vacated. 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation

and over all Parties to this litigation.

5. Distribution of the Notice of Settlement ("Notice") to members of the

Class as described in the Settlement Agreement and as preliminarily approved by

the Court, has been completed in conformity with the Order of Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement filed May 23, 2007. Such individual Notice

was mailed to all members of the Class who could be identified through reasonable

effort, and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. This Notice

provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth

therein, including the proposed terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to all

persons entitled to such Notice. The Notice fully satisfied the requirements of due

process as to the settlement. No member of the Class objected to the settlement,

and only 161 members of the Class requested to be excluded from the settlement. 

These 161 Class Members represent less than 1% of the Settlement Class. 

6. For purposes of this Judgment, the term "Settlement Class Member"

means all persons employed in any non-exempt position by MICHAELS STORES,

INC., in its retail stores in the State of California at any time during the Class

Period, July 13, 2001 through January 14, 2007. 

7. This Court hereby approves the settlement and finds that the

settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and directs the Parties

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 4 of 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

1 “Final Approval” defined in the Settlement Agreement at Paragraph 1.4, 

means “the date when this Stipulation of Settlement has been approved by the

District Court and the period for appeal has expired, or in the event of an appeal,

the appeal has been finally resolved to uphold the District Court’s approval of the

Stipulation of Settlement.”

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

-4-

to effectuate the settlement according to its terms. The Court has considered

numerous factors, including the opinions and experience of counsel; the procedural

history of the case including the litigation status at the time of the settlement; the

risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; and the terms

negotiated in the settlement. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the terms of

the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Parties

and the Class. 

8. The Court further finds that the settlement has been reached as a result

of intensive, serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations, including

voluntary, non-binding mediation before an experienced mediator. The Court finds

that the Parties have conducted extensive investigation, research, and discovery

and that counsel for the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate the Parties'

respective positions. The Court finds that settlement at this time will avoid

additional substantial costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be

presented by the further prosecution of the Action. The Court has reviewed the

monetary recovery prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and recognizes the

significant value to the Class of that monetary recovery.

9. As of the effective date1

 of settlement, the released claims of each

member of the Class, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are and

shall be deemed to be fully, finally, and conclusively released as against

Defendant, MICHAELS STORES, INC., and each member of the Class shall be

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 5 of 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

 ORDER ON FINAL APPROVAL 

 OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Case No. 05-CV-1678 WQH (JMA) 

-5-

forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the released claims. 

10. The Court hereby dismisses the Litigation on the merits and with

prejudice, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, against the Named

Plaintiffs and all members of the Class who have not requested exclusion in favor

of Defendant as to all claims asserted, excepting therefrom pursuant to the terms of

the Settlement Agreement, the claims for overtime or off-the-clock pay, and related

claims for record-keeping, waiting time penalties, itemized wage statements,

attorneys' fees, and unfair competition law claims, which claims will be dismissed

without prejudice. However, with respect to such overtime or off-the-clock

claims, they will be dismissed with prejudice by only those members of the

Encinitas Sub-Class who have not requested exclusion pursuant to the terms of the

Settlement Agreement.

11. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court

hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation and

enforcement of the Settlement and all orders and judgments entered in connection 

therewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA Document 60 Filed 11/14/07 Page 6 of 6