Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03893/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03893-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CLASS NOTICE 

12-CV-03893-JSW 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RONALD SHEPHARD and HENRY 

ROMINES, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated; 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LOWE’S HIW, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, 

Defendants 

Case No.: 12-CV-03893-JSW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CLASS 

NOTICE 

LOWE’S HIW, INC., 

Third-Party Plaintiff 

vs. 

MERRILL’S GARAGE DOORS, INC., a 

California corporation, 

Third-Party Defendant. 

FAC Filed: June 20, 2012 

Trial Date: February 2, 2015 

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the parties’ Submission Regarding Class 

Notice. The parties agreed on the substance and form of the notice to class members with one 

exception. Defendant proposed that the following sentence be included in the notice, which Plaintiff 

opposed: “You also may be required to provide information, give testimony at a deposition, and/or 

Case 4:12-cv-03893-JSW Document 78 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 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

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CLASS NOTICE 

12-CV-03893-JSW 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 

give testimony at the trial of this action.” The parties ask the Court to approve the agreed-upon 

notice and rule on whether the additional sentence proposed by Lowe’s should be included. 

Based on the foregoing, and the Court having considered the parties’ filings, the Court 

hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1. The court has reviewed the proposed notice filed by the parties and finds that it meets 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The Notice, therefore, and is 

APPROVED; 

2. Defendant’s request to add its proposed additional sentence to the notice is 

[GRANTED/DENIED]; 

3. The notice proposed by the parties, as approved herein, following the insertion of the 

administrator’s name and address, shall serve as the notice to be issued in this matter; 

and 

4. Plaintiff shall provide the notice and the questionnaire, as approved herein, along with 

postage-prepaid post-cards and envelopes as indicated in the proposed notice 

submitted by the parties, via first class mail to the last known addresses of the class 

members, as provided by the defendant on or before the date previously set by this 

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ________________________ _______________________________________ 

 Hon. Jeffrey S. White 

 United States District Judge 

because the Court has not determined the disputed issue, but the disputed 

language provides that class member "may" be required, January 6, 2014

Case 4:12-cv-03893-JSW Document 78 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2