Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03955/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03955-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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 RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-03955-JD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOVELY NAKOOKA and ELVA REYES, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., and DOES 

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-03955-JD

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

`

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 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 RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-03955-JD

After the parties resolved a variety of shortcomings in their initial request for preliminary 

approval of a classwide settlement, Dkt. No. 30, the Court granted preliminary approval to a revised

settlement proposal in December 2018. Dkt. No. 44. That approval was based in part on representations 

about the amount of fees to be paid to the settlement administrator. The joint motion for final approval 

featured significantly higher fees for the administrator, with no good reason provided for the extra costs. 

Dkt. No. 47. Because the administrator fees looked excessive, the Court denied final approval, and 

asked the parties to reduce them to a more reasonable level and to provide a revised proposal for a 

second round of distributions to the class if warranted. Dkt. No. 48. The parties filed a supplemental 

memorandum stating that they had reached an agreement to reduce the administrator fees, and 

explaining how a second distribution round would happen. Dkt. No. 49.

The Court still has concerns about the amount of fees to be paid to the administrator. While they 

are no longer sky-high, they are still at the higher end of fees paid in comparable cases. Even so, the 

Court has concluded that they are just within the boundary of being acceptable, and will grant final 

approval based on the revised administrator fees set out in the supplemental memorandum. 

Consequently, it is ordered:

1. Pursuant to the Order Re Preliminary Approval, the Class Notice was sent to each Class 

Member by first-class mail. The Class Notice directed the Class Members to PACER and the 

Settlement Administrator’s website, where Class Members could review the terms of the Settlement, 

their right to receive a Settlement Share, their right to object to the Settlement or to elect not to 

participate in the Settlement and pursue their own remedies, and their right to appear in person or by 

counsel at the final approval hearing and be heard regarding approval of the Settlement. Adequate 

periods of time were provided by each of these procedures. Not one Class Member filed a written 

objection to the proposed Settlement as part of this notice period or stated an intention to appear at the 

final approval hearing. One Class Member filed a written comment expressing a negative view of the 

case itself. Dkt. No. 45. The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate 

protections to Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision 

regarding approval of the Settlement based on the responses of Class Members. The Court finds and 

determines that the notice provided in this case was the best notice practicable, which satisfied the 

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 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

-2-

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-CV-03955-JD

requirements of law and due process. 

2. In addition to the notice to the Class, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 

28 U.S.C. § 1715 (“CAFA”), the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state official 

in each state in which a Class Member resides have been given notice of the Settlement. Pursuant to 

CAFA, not later than 10 days after the motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed 

with the Court, Dollar Tree served upon the appropriate state official of each state in which a Class 

Member resides and the appropriate federal official a notice of the Settlement consisting of: copies of

the complaint in this action; a notice of the scheduled judicial hearings in this class action; copies of the 

Settlement Agreement, proposed notices of class action settlement and Class Members’ right to request 

exclusion from the class; and the names of Class Members who reside in each state and the estimated 

proportionate share of the claims of Class Members in each state to the entire Settlement. The notice of 

Settlement also invited comment on the Settlement. The Court finds and determines that Dollar Tree’s 

notice of the Settlement met the statutory requirements of CAFA. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. section 

1715(e) has no application to the Settlement.

3. In addition to the CAFA notice, pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General 

Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2), the State of California’s Labor Workforce 

Development Agency (“LWDA”) has been given notice of the Settlement. Pursuant to PAGA, 

concurrent with the motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement being filed with the Court, 

Dollar Tree served upon the LWDA a notice of the Settlement consisting of: copies of the complaint in 

this action; a notice of the scheduled judicial hearings in this class action; copies of the Settlement 

Agreement, proposed notices of class action settlement and Class Members’ right to request exclusion 

from the class; and the names of Class Members who reside in each state and the estimated 

proportionate share of the claims of Class Members in each state to the entire Settlement. The notice of 

Settlement also invited comment on the Settlement. The Court finds and determines that Dollar Tree’s 

notice of the Settlement met the statutory requirements of PAGA. Accordingly, Cal. Lab. Code 

§ 2699(l)(2) has no application to the Settlement.

4. For the reasons stated in the Order Re Preliminary Approval, the Court finds and 

determines that the proposed Class, as defined in the definitions section of the Settlement and 

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 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

-3-

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-CV-03955-JD

conditionally certified by the Order Re Preliminary Approval, meets the requirements for class 

certification, and it is ordered that the Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of 

the Settlement.

5. Although no objection per se was made to the terms of the Settlement, the Court has 

taken notice of the comment criticizing the case as a whole. For the sake of clarity, the Court finds that 

the comment does not warrant denial of final approval. 

6. The Court finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and 

adequate to the Class and to each Class Member and that the Class Members who did not timely submit 

valid elections not to participate in the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the 

Order Re Preliminary Approval will be bound by the Settlement, that the Settlement is ordered finally 

approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby are ordered to be 

consummated.

7. The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be paid to the Class 

Members whose address was confirmed and who did not timely submit valid elections not to participate, 

as provided for by the Settlement, are fair and reasonable. The Court grants final approval to and orders 

that payment of those amounts be made to the Class Members who did not timely submit valid elections 

not to participate and whose addresses were confirmed out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance 

with the Settlement. 

8. The Court finds and determines that the LWDA Payment is fair and reasonable. The 

Court grants final approval to and orders that payment.

9. The Court finds and determines that the cost to administer the Settlement, in the amount 

of $113,000 for the first distribution, is fair and reasonable. The Court grants final approval to and 

orders that amount be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

10. After the initial distribution is completed, the parties are directed to submit a joint 

proposal for a second distribution of the uncashed Settlement Shares, if warranted, and the balance of 

uncashed funds remaining after a second distribution. The Court determines that the cost of 

administering the second distribution, in the amount of $0.76 per check, is fair and reasonable. If a 

second distribution is approved, the cost of $0.76 per check shall be paid out of the Maximum 

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 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

-4-

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-CV-03955-JD

Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

11. The Court approves the revised costs to administer the settlement. See Dkt. No. 49. 

12. The Court determines by separate order the request by plaintiffs and Class Counsel to the 

Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. See Dkt. No. 48. 

13. Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all 

matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of 

this order and the Settlement.

14. Nothing in this order will preclude any action to enforce the parties’ obligations under the 

Settlement or under this order, including the requirement that Dollar Tree make payments to the Class 

Members in accordance with the Settlement.

15. Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California’s Procedural 

Guidance for Class Action Settlements, updated December 5, 2018, within 21 days after the distribution 

of the Settlement Shares, the parties will file with the Court, and post on the settlement website, a PostDistribution Accounting.

16. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will 

provide written certification of such completion to the Court and counsel for the parties. 

17. Pursuant to the Settlement, plaintiffs and all Class Members who did not timely submit 

valid elections not to participate are permanently barred from prosecuting against Dollar Tree, and its 

parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, and trusts, and all of its 

employees, officers, agents, attorneys, stockholders, fiduciaries, other service providers, and related 

persons and entities, and assigns, any of the claims released by them under the Settlement.

18. The parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement.

19. The Court enters final judgment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, the Order Re Preliminary Approval entered on December 19, 2018, and this order.

20. This document will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document constituting the 

judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 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

-5-

ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-CV-03955-JD

The parties will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees except as otherwise provided by the 

Court’s order granting the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2019

Hon. James Donato

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD Document 51 Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 6