Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02198/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02198-9/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR VICERAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MISTRAS GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02198-EMC 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Docket No. 70

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary approval, and hereby orders the 

parties to provide a joint supplemental brief regarding the following issues. The supplemental 

briefing should be filed no later than August 9, 2016 at 12:00 PM PST.

1. Attorney‟s Fees

Plaintiffs‟ counsel intends to seek an award of one-third (331⁄3%) of the Gross Settlement 

Fund ($2,000,000) as the Fee Award, plus reimbursement of reasonable and actual expenses, not 

to exceed $42,000, as the Expense Award. See Docket No. 70-1 (Saltzman Dec.) at ¶ 21. 

Plaintiffs should provide specific, non-conclusory information as to why a departure from the 25% 

benchmark is appropriate (e.g., how the issues in this case were particularly difficult, complex, or 

novel, and given the early procedural posture of this case). See, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 

290 F.3d 1043, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2012).

Further, to assess the fee request, even for purposes of preliminary approval only, the 

Court is in need of information as to the lodestar claimed -- i.e., the number of hours incurred in 

the case and the hourly rates claimed. Plaintiffs‟ attorneys shall file with this Court, ex parte and 

under seal, one (1) declaration that states the total number of hours worked on this litigation, and 

which breaks the number of hours down by task (e.g., “Initial Case Investigation,” “Settlement 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

Negotiations and Mediation,” etc.). Counsel shall attach their actual time records to the 

declaration. The declaration and associated records shall be filed with the Court no later than 

August 9, 2016. The parties should also ensure that the fee motion is filed and available on the 

Class Administrator‟s website at least twenty-one (21) days before objections to the proposed 

settlement are due.

2. Expected Recovery Per Class Member

The parties must clarify whether Plaintiffs‟ estimate that a California Class member will 

receive up to $1,248/year worked and a FLSA Class member will receive up to $263/year is based 

on the Net Settlement Amount or the Gross Settlement Amount. Compare Docket No. 70 (Mot.) 

at 9 (discussing recovery based on Net Settlement Amount and estimating that a California Class

member will receive up to $1,248/year) with id. at 10 (stating that the stated recovery of $1,248 is 

a significant result but that “this number does not take into account reductions for fees and costs of 

at least 35%”).

3. Full Verdict Value of the Case

Plaintiffs emphasize that the Settlement Agreement “represents a significant recovery for 

the Class Members.” Id. at 18. However, Plaintiffs do not appear to provide an estimate of what 

the potential recovery of the case is, instead only providing the expected range of a California 

class member‟s recovery for an overtime/off the clock claim ($0 to $4,600/year), a California class 

member‟s recovery for a meal and rest break claim ($0 to $2,300/year), and a FLSA class 

member‟s recovery for an overtime/off the clock claim ($0 to $4,600/year). See id. at 10-11. 

Plaintiffs do not provide a total estimate of what the full aggregate verdict value of these claims 

will be, and provide no estimates as to the California waiting time penalty claim, or the California 

Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim. Thus, the Court has no point of comparison to 

determine that this settlement is in fact a significant recovery for the class.

The parties must provide an estimate of the full aggregate verdict value of each of these

claims. Further, with respect to the FLSA claims, Plaintiffs suggest that there is only one FLSA 

cause of action, namely off-the-clock overtime. Id. at 9 n.13. However, the “FLSA Class 

Released Claims” includes not only overtime, but minimum wage and recordkeeping violations. 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

Saltzman Dec., Exh. 1 (Settlement Agreement) at ¶ 21. Thus, the parties must provide an estimate 

of the full verdict value of each of the FLSA claims being released, not simply the overtime 

claims. Otherwise, the Court cannot determine if the settlement falls within the range of possible 

approval.

4. Distribution of the Settlement Fund

The Settlement Agreement creates two separate classes: (1) a California class that pursues 

claims under California labor law (California class), and (2) a national class that pursues claims 

under the FLSA (FLSA class). See Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 2, 19. An individual can be a 

member of both the California and FLSA class. The Settlement Agreement distributes the Net 

Settlement Fund (estimated at $3,888,559.65) by allocating 65% of the Net Settlement Fund to the 

California Class and 35% to the FLSA Class. Mot. at 9; see also Settlement Agreement at ¶ 53(b).

The parties do not adequately explain the basis of this 65-35 split, especially when this 

split ultimately results in a FLSA Class member receiving approximately one-fifth of what a 

California Class member would receive (as there are nearly three times as many FLSA Class 

members as California Class members). See Settlement Agreement at 4 (number of individuals 

per class); 9 (maximum individual settlement amount for California Class member is $1,248/year, 

and maximum individual settlement amount for FLSA Class member is $263/year). To the extent 

that Plaintiffs suggest that the split is justified because the FLSA action alleges only one cause of 

action for off-the-clock overtime, this ignores the fact that the FLSA Class is being required to 

release their minimum wage and recordkeeping violations claims. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 21. 

Further, while Plaintiffs state that the FLSA action had a risk of being less likely to obtain 

certification or survive a decertification motion, Plaintiffs provide no factual or legal basis for this 

assertion. See Mot. at 10. At most, Plaintiffs state that “the FLSA only provides for overtime 

when an employee works more than 40 hours in a week, as opposed to California‟s more favorable 

„8 hour per-day rule,‟” yet estimates both the FLSA and California claim at being between $0 to 

$4,600/year per class member. Plaintiffs also repeatedly cite to “more than 500 declarations 

Defendant amassed from class members to defend against this case,” but provide no information 

on what these declarations said and why they would relate only to the FLSA claims but not the 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

California claims. In short, there is inadequate information explaining why a California Class 

member is entitled to five times the amount of a FLSA Class member.1 Without this information, 

the Court cannot determine if there is preferential treatment.

5. Risks of Litigation

Plaintiffs provide no explanation of what risks of litigation they face moving forward, and 

therefore the Court cannot has no basis to decide the strength of Plaintiffs‟ case; the risk, expense, 

and duration of further litigation; and the risk of maintaining class action status. Again, Plaintiffs 

only state that Defendant was able to obtain 500 putative class member declarations, but do not 

discuss what is in these declarations or what effect (if any) these declarations have on the legal

claim. The parties must provide legal authority and an explanation of the facts as to what risks 

exist.

With respect to the PAGA claim, the parties must also explain why the $20,000 PAGA 

allocation is not an arbitrary reduction of the statutory penalties that would be due. The parties 

should provide case authority justifying any discount.

6. FLSA Affirmative Opt-In

The FLSA states: “No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he 

gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which 

such action is brought.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Various courts have found that “it is contrary to § 

216(b) to bind class members to a release of FLSA claims where, as here, the members have not 

affirmatively elected to participate in the lawsuit by filing a written consent form.” See Tijero v. 

Aaron Bros., Inc., No. C 10-01089 SBA, 2013 WL 60464, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013); La 

Parne v. Monex Deposit Co., No. SACV 08-0302 DOC (MLGx), 2010 WL 4916606, at *3 (C.D. 

Cal. Nov. 29, 2010) (agreeing with the courts which “have determined that it would be contrary to 

the [FLSA] to bind class members who do not affirmatively elect, through opt-in procedures, to 

participate in the FLSA suit,” and that “[t]herefore, only class members who affirmatively „opt-in‟ 

 

1 Arguably, the disparity is even greater, as an individual can be both a member of the California 

Class and FLSA Class. Thus, a California Class member who is a member of both classes would 

be entitled to up to $1,511/year, in contrast to a FLSA member receiving $263/year.

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

to the Settlement should be bound by the Settlement‟s release of FLSA liability”); Kakani v. 

Oracle Corp., No. C 06-06493 WHA, 2007 WL 1793774, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007) (finding 

that “[t]he settlement agreement would violate the [FLSA] because it “is unconscionable to try to 

take away the FLSA rights of all workers, whether or not they choose to join in affirmatively”). 

Here, there is no affirmative opt-in, as the FLSA Class members are deemed to have “opted in” by 

cashing the check; for example, there is no notation on the check stating that by endorsing the 

check, the FLSA Class member is consenting to join the collective action and thereby release the 

claims in this action. The parties should address whether an additional mechanism is required to 

satisfy the opt-in requirement.

7. Notice to FLSA Class Members

The parties must explain why notice to the FLSA Class members is not being given prior 

to the Final Approval proceedings, thus preventing the FLSA Class members from having any 

opportunity to object. See Saltzman Dec., at ¶ 36 (stating timetable of events, and explaining the 

FLSA Class notice will not be sent until after the Final Approval Hearing); Settlement Agreement, 

Exh. 2 (FLSA Class Notice) at 2, 4 (stating that the Settlement Agreement was already approved 

by the Court).

8. Response to Objections from Class Members

If the parties have any responses to objections from class members, the parties should file 

their responses fourteen (14) days before the final approval hearing.

9. CAFA Notice

The parties should address when CAFA notice was given. See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b).

10. Class Notice for California Class (Exhibit 1 of Settlement Agreement)

a. Notice of Class Action Settlement (Page 1)

On the first page of the notice, there should be a short statement regarding the expected 

average recovery per class member. It must be bolded.

In the paragraph stating “You may be a member of both the California Class and also the 

FLSA Class,” the Notice should specify that this notice is specific only to the California Class.

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

b. What Are My Options (Pages 3-4)

The paragraph discussing “Option 1 -- Do nothing” should remove the phrase “and you are 

a California Class Member” as this Notice is only going to California Class members. Therefore, 

inclusion of this phrase is potentially confusing.

The paragraph discussing “Option 2 -- Request exclusion” must explain the purpose of 

exclusion, i.e., to not relinquish the claims and therefore retain the right to bring suit against 

Defendant. Currently, this paragraph only explains how to request exclusion, without stating the 

consequence of exclusion. The parties should address whether an opt-out form is warranted, 

rather than requiring an individual class member to submit a letter with the following statement (or 

something similar): “I request to be excluded from the class action proceedings taking place in the 

matter of Viceral and Krueger, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, 

Northern District of California, Case No. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC.”

The paragraph discussing “Option 3 -- Object to the Class portion of the Settlement” is 

misleading, as it states that an individual “cannot ask the Court to order a larger settlement.” This 

may cause objectors to believe that they cannot object to the settlement based on, for example, a 

challenge to the payment terms that apply generally to the class. Further, this paragraph states that 

the objection must be sent to the Class Administrator, before stating that the objection should be 

sent to the Court. This paragraph must clarify that the objections are to be sent to the Class 

Administrator, not the Court.

c. What am I Giving Up In Exchange For the Settlement Benefits (Pages 4-5)

The first paragraph explaining the “California Released Claims” ends by stating “at any 

times during the California Class Period.” However, the Notice does not appear to define what the 

“California Class Period” is, i.e., the period beginning April 10, 2011 through the date of Final 

Approval. This term must be explained.

The second paragraph states “Upon the Effective Date,” but never defines what the 

“Effective Date” is. This term must be explained.

The final paragraph of this section states: “This Settlement is conditioned upon the Court 

entering an order at or following the Final Approval hearing approving the Settlement as fair, 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members.” The phrase “in the best 

interests of the Class Members” must be removed.

d. Additional Information

The Notice states that the Settlement Agreement will be available at a website (to be 

added). The website must include not only the Settlement Agreement, but the operative 

complaint, as well as -- in the event of preliminary approval -- the Court‟s order granting 

preliminary approval, the motion for final approval, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for attorney‟s fees and 

representative awards.

e. California Class Form

The Class Form must include the Settlement Administrator‟s contact information.

11. Class Notice for FLSA Class (Exhibit 2 of Settlement Agreement)

a. Notice of Collective Action Settlement (Page 1)

In the paragraph stating Re: Settlement of claims for alleged wage-hour violations, the 

Notice should be limited to the FLSA Action, and not state that the settlement includes “California 

wage and hour laws,” as that is potentially confusing given that a separate notice is being sent for 

the California Class settlement.

b. What are My Options (Page 3)

“Option 1 -- do nothing” is confusing because the FLSA Class member is being required to 

act, i.e., to cash the check. 

Again, the parties must explain why FLSA Class members are not being given any 

opportunity to object to the Settlement Agreement.

c. What am I Giving Up In Exchange For the Settlement Benefits (Pages 4-5)

The first paragraph explaining the “FLSA Class Released Claims” ends by stating “at any 

times during the FLSA Class Period.” The Notice should re-define what the “FLSA Class Period” 

is, i.e., the period beginning April 10, 2012 through the date of Final Approval.

The second paragraph states “Upon the Effective Date,” but never defines what the 

“Effective Date” is. This term must be explained.

The final paragraph of this section states: “This Settlement has been approved by the 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 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

For the Northern District of California

Court. The Court found that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests 

of the Class Members.” The phrase “in the best interests of the Class Members” must be removed.

d. Additional Information

The Notice states that the Settlement Agreement will be available at a website (to be 

added). The website must include not only the Settlement Agreement, but the operative 

complaint, as well as -- in the event of preliminary approval -- the Court‟s order granting 

preliminary approval, the motion for final approval, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for attorney‟s fees and 

representative awards.

e. FLSA Class Form

The FLSA Class Form does not provide any mechanism for disputing the number of 

individual work weeks, unlike the California Class Form. This is contrary to the Settlement 

Agreement, which provides that a FLSA Class Member can dispute the individual work weeks 

shown on his or her form by “produc[ing] evidence to the Settlement Administrator establishing 

the dates he or she contends to have worked for Defendant.” Settlement Agreement at ¶ 70.

The FLSA Class Form should also include the Settlement Administrator‟s contact 

information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 71 Filed 08/02/16 Page 8 of 8