Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03001/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03001-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

NICK CANCILLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ECOLAB, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03001-JD 

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND SERVICE 

PAYMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 227, 228, 231

In this wage-and-hour class and collective action, the Court previously granted preliminary 

approval of a proposed class action settlement. Dkt. No. 226. Following a December 9, 2015 

hearing, this order resolves plaintiffs’ unopposed motions for: (1) final settlement approval and 

certification of a settlement class, (2) attorneys’ fees and costs, and (3) class representative service 

awards. Dkt. Nos. 231, 227, 228. The Court grants the first two motions, and grants in part the 

third.

BACKGROUND

The key facts are set out in the Court’s preliminary approval order. Dkt. No. 226. In 

summary, the plaintiffs in this action are current and former Service Specialists, Select Segment 

Service Specialists and Senior Service Specialists in Ecolab’s Pest Elimination Division 

(collectively, “Service Specialists”). Id. at 1; Dkt. No. 119 ¶ 8. Plaintiffs allege that Ecolab 

misclassified them as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and consequently “failed to pay 

them overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours 

worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.” Dkt. No. 119 ¶¶ 8-9. The named plaintiffs also 

allege various state law violations relating to Ecolab’s compensation practices. Id. at 4-12. 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 8
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

In 2013, the Court conditionally certified the FLSA claim in this case as a collective action 

under section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and ordered that notice of the collective action 

be mailed to putative members. Dkt. No. 85. The parties entered into a settlement agreement after 

mediation in May 2015. Dkt. No. 231 at 3. That settlement agreement is the operative agreement 

in this case. See Dkt. No. 231 at 1, 4; Dkt. No. 223-2. The Court granted preliminary approval on 

August 12, 2015, finding that the agreement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Dkt. No. 226. 

The proposed class consists of 1,053 individuals, including 580 Service Specialists who 

opted in to the previously certified FLSA collective action class and 473 additional putative class 

members that are Service Specialists in eight state settlement classes. Dkt. No. 231 at 1. The 

conditionally certified FLSA collective action class includes: 

[a]ll individuals who worked for Ecolab as a Service Specialist from 

October 12, 2010 to the present who opted into this lawsuit, and 

were not dismissed, and did not withdraw, other than the two Opt-In 

Plaintiffs who were dismissed and then added back, as of the May 8, 

2015 mediation.

Dkt. No. 223-2 at 3. The putative state settlement classes cover all Service Specialists who 

worked for Ecolab in Colorado and New York from June 12, 2006 through April 30, 2015; in 

Illinois, Maryland, and Washington from June 12, 2009 through April 30, 2015; and in Missouri, 

North Carolina, and Wisconsin from June 12, 2010 through April 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 223 at 9.

The non-reversionary settlement fund to be paid by Ecolab to settle the suit is $7,500,000. 

Dkt. No. 231 at 4; Dkt. No. 223-2, Exh. 1 at 10. The agreement states class counsel’s intention to 

seek up to 25% of this settlement amount for attorney fees and reimbursement of up to $150,000 

for out-of-pocket costs. Dkt. No. 231 at 4; Dkt. No. 223-2, Exh. 1 at 10. The agreement also 

expresses the class representatives’ intention to request service payments of $3,000 each, to total 

$27,000 for the nine class representatives. Dkt. No. 231 at 4; Dkt. No. 223-2, Exh. 1 at 11. Up to 

an additional $45,000 was estimated for the settlement administrator. Dkt. No. 231 at 4. Ecolab 

agreed to pay additionally the employer’s share of state and federal payroll taxes on the portion of 

settlement payouts that are designated as unpaid wages. Id.; Dkt. No. 223-2, Exh. 1 at 10. A 

reserve of $25,000 of the settlement fund will be set aside to address processing errors and to 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ensure that all participating class members will receive at least $100 from the settlement. Dkt. No. 

231 at 4-5. The remaining fund, estimated to be close to $5,400,000, will be distributed among 

the class members on a modified pro rata basis according to their weeks worked as a Service 

Specialist during the class periods, applying a multiplier of 1.5 to the hours worked by FLSA class 

members during the FLSA class period. Dkt. No. 231 at 5-6. 

The class members do not need to submit claim forms in order to receive a settlement 

check. Unless they excluded themselves from the settlement, all class members will receive a 

check with no further action required. Dkt. No. 231 at 5. If the amount of uncashed checks 

together with the $25,000 reserve fund totals $30,000 or more after 120 days, those funds will be 

redistributed to the class members who cashed their initial checks on a pro-rata basis. Id. If the 

amount is less than $30,000, it will go to the cy pres beneficiary, the Legal Aid SocietyEmployment Law Center in San Francisco. Id. 

The class members who do not opt out will release Ecolab from all claims for:

wages, statutory and civil penalties, damages and liquidated 

damages, interest, fees and costs that were or could have been 

alleged and whether known or unknown under the FLSA and/or 

Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, 

Washington or Wisconsin law, arising out of the allegations of the 

Complaint during the applicable Class Periods set forth above...

Dkt. No. 231 at 6; Dkt. No. 223-2, Ex. 1 at 24. This release is “limited to wage and hour claims 

that were alleged in the Complaints in the action or arise from facts alleged in the Complaints.” 

Dkt. No. 231 at 7. Each plaintiff for whom the Court approves an incentive payment also will sign 

“individual, general releases” of claims, including any claims arising from their employment with 

Ecolab. See id.; see Dkt. No. 223-2, Ex. 1 at 26. 

Plaintiffs report that notice has been provided in accordance with the proposed settlement 

agreement and the Court’s preliminary approval order. The settlement administrator received and 

updated a list of the class members’ names and addresses. Dkt. No 231 at 7; Dkt. No. 231-2 ¶ 3. 

The approved class notice was mailed to the updated mailing addresses. Dkt. No. 231-2 ¶ 4. 

Efforts were made to locate new addresses, and a second round of notice packets were sent to 

those whose packets were returned in the first cycle. Id. ¶ 7. The notice informed parties they 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

could challenge their applicable workweek calculation, and the one challenge that was made was 

resolved. Id. ¶ 8. A toll-free line and website were set up to field inquiries and provide 

information. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The administrator reported that as of the October 19, 2015 deadline, the 

only two requests by putative class members for exclusion from the class had been rescinded. Id. 

¶ 9; Dkt. No. 231 at 8. No objections to the settlement were received. Dkt. No. 231-2 ¶ 10; Dkt. 

No. 231 at 8. 

DISCUSSION

I. FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL 

CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS

In the order granting preliminary approval, the Court found that the proposed settlement 

satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), namely, numerosity, 

commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. Dkt. No. 226 at 5-6. The Court also 

found that the proposed class met the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). 

Id. at 6. The Court concluded that, overall, the proposed agreement was “fair, reasonable, and 

adequate” under Rule 23(e). Id. at 4. 

The Court finds that these conclusions hold at this final approval stage. The relief 

available to the class is reasonable in light of the risks they face. For the strengths and weaknesses 

of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff’s motion points to the defenses defendant raised in its summary 

judgment motion, including arguments that certain of plaintiff’s claims fell into FLSA 

exemptions. Dkt. No. 231 at 11. Plaintiffs also cite the difficulties they were facing in 

maintaining certification of the FLSA class and obtaining certification of the eight state classes. 

Id. at 11-12. By settling, the class avoids the risk that the Court will find merit in any of those 

bases, and each member will instead simply receive a check in the mail that on average, is 

expected to equal approximately five thousand dollars. Id. at 13. 

The Court also finds that the discovery done in the case was appropriate, and plaintiffs’ 

counsel has detailed a sufficiently robust investigation, including interviews with hundreds of 

class members, depositions of Ecolab witnesses, and significant amounts of written discovery and 

document production. Id. at 14. Last but not least, plaintiffs report that no class members have 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

objected to the proposed settlement, which is a significant factor in favor of final approval. Id. at 

15-16; see Sarkisov v. StoneMor Partners L.P., No. 13-CV-04834-JD, 2015 WL 5769621, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2015); see also Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575, 576 

n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing “the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement” among 

the “non-exclusive” settlement evaluation factors courts are to consider before granting approval). 

No objections were raised at the public hearing.

The Court determines that notice to the class members was accomplished in the manner 

prescribed by the settlement and as approved by the Court at the preliminary approval stage. See

Dkt. No. 226 at 6. 

On the FLSA side of the case, the Court previously found that plaintiff had satisfied the 

standards and granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective action, which is generally 

more lenient than the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

Dkt. No. 226 at 2, 6; Dkt. No. 85. That conclusion, too, still holds. And for the same reasons 

already discussed, the Court finds that the proposed FLSA settlement constitutes a “fair and 

reasonable” resolution “of a bona fide dispute,” and approves it. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). The Court confirms David Beausoleil and 

Patrick Sweeney as class representatives of the FLSA opt in class.

Consequently, the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, finally certifies 

the state settlement classes as proposed, and confirms as final the appointment of named plaintiffs 

David Beausoleil, Lucio Flores, Robert Birch, Thomas Jennison, Michael Emanuel, Kenneth 

Forbes, Frederick Simon, Brian O’Neil and Patrick Sweeney as the class representatives of the 

respective state classes under Rule 23. 

II. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the Court’s approval for an award of $1,875,000 in attorneys’ fees 

and $135,601.83 in costs. Dkt. No. 227 at 1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are allowed 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) and Section 216 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

both of which apply to this case. 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The amount sought by plaintiffs’ counsel represents 25% of the $7,500,000 total class 

settlement. This amount is consistent with the “benchmark” in our Circuit when fees are sought in 

this manner. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 949 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(“Under the percentage-of-recovery method, the attorneys’ fees equal some percentage of the 

common settlement fund; in this circuit, the benchmark percentage is 25%”). The reasonableness 

of the fees requested is confirmed by the fact that the fee award sought by counsel is only about 

66% of the $2,835,000 in fees calculated by plaintiffs in their lodestar. See Dkt. No. 227 at 10; 

see Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002) (approving the district 

court’s use of the lodestar method “as a cross-check of the percentage method”). The Court finds 

that the unopposed fee request is also adequately supported by the documentation plaintiff has 

submitted, Dkt. Nos. 227-1 to 227-6, and the Court approves it. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has documented a request for $135,601.83 in costs, which the Court 

finds adequately-supported and reasonable. The Court awards these costs as requested.

III. INCENTIVE AWARDS

The “incentive payment” request is granted only in part. Plaintiffs ask the Court to award 

an extra $3,000 in incentive payments to each of the nine named plaintiffs and class 

representatives. Dkt. No. 228 at 1. 

The Court, following the Ninth Circuit, has consistently expressed strong skepticism of 

arrangements whereby named plaintiffs do better than ordinary members of the class, based on the 

danger that it may lead to collusive settlements and conflict within the plaintiff’s side of the case. 

See Myles v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs., LLC, No. 12-cv-05761, 2014 WL 6065602, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 12, 2014) (“Absent a particularized showing of expenses incurred or injury suffered by [the 

named plaintiff] (above and beyond those of the other proposed class members), an enhancement 

award is inappropriate”); Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 12-cv-05527, 2014 WL 5826335, at 

*6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014); Sarkisov, 2015 WL 5769621, at *4. The Court has expressly 

advised the parties in this case that this is a “practice that this Court normally rejects.” Dkt. 

No. 226 at 7.

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 6 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

But the Court’s serious doubts about the propriety of incentive payments do not amount to 

an inflexible rule. In rare circumstances, there can be factors that warrant the award of additional 

money to the named representatives above and beyond what the rank-and-file class members get. 

See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing relevant factors in 

determining an incentive award as “the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the 

class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, ... the amount of time and 

effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation ... and reasonabl[e] fear[s of] workplace 

retaliation” (quotation omitted)). 

This case qualifies for a modest additional award to the named plaintiffs. As an initial 

factor, the named plaintiffs won a significant settlement in this matter, which will result in an 

average payout of approximately $5,000 to class members. Dkt. No. 228 at 1. This is a 

significant settlement and recovery in the context of this case and the non-highly compensated 

Service Specialist plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 231 at 13. And more than half of the named plaintiffs 

appear to have been Ecolab employees during the pendency of the suit, and still worked on the 

case despite the possibility of retaliation from their employer. Dkt. No. 228 at 5; Dkt. No. 228-3; 

Dkt. No. 228-10; Dkt. No. 229; Dkt. No. 228-5; Dkt. No. 228-8. The named plaintiffs will sign 

significantly broader releases than the other class members. Dkt. No. 228 at 7. The named 

plaintiffs report participation in many elements of the case, meeting with counsel and co-workers 

to investigate and prosecute the case, interfacing with co-workers regarding the case and their 

FLSA opt-in process, searching for documents and helping with other discovery, and participating 

in depositions and mediation. Dkt. No. 228 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 228-1 to 228-10; Dkt. No. 229.

In light of these facts, Court approves service awards of $500 to each of the nine named 

plaintiffs. In addition, all of the named plaintiffs may be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket costs 

and any work missed. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants plaintiff’s (1) motion for final approval of class settlement and for final 

certification of settlement class, Dkt. No. 231, and (2) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, Dkt. 

No. 227. The Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, and finally certifies the state 

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

settlement classes and FLSA class as proposed. The Court confirms the appointment of David 

Beausoleil, Lucio Flores, Robert Birch, Thomas Jennison, Michael Emanuel, Kenneth Forbes, 

Frederick Simon, Brian O’Neil and Patrick Sweeney as the class representatives of the respective 

state classes under Rule 23, and David Beausoleil and Patrick Sweeney as class representatives of 

the FLSA opt in class. The Court further approves the payment of $1,875,000 in attorneys’ fees 

and $135,601.83 in costs to class counsel. 

Plaintiff’s motion for incentive pay to the nine class representatives, Dkt. No. 228, is 

granted in part, and these named plaintiffs may be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket costs and any 

work missed.

The parties are ordered to comply with the remaining terms of the revised settlement 

agreement, Dkt. No. 223-2, Exh. 1, and the Clerk is requested to close the file and terminate any 

pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03001-JD Document 233 Filed 01/05/16 Page 8 of 8