Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00222/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00222-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

CHERYL DEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPASS BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00222-JSC 

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 75, 87

Plaintiff Cheryl Deaver and Defendants Compass Bank, Inc. (“Compass”) and BBVA 

Compass Insurance Agency, Inc. (“BBVA”) seek preliminary approval of a class action settlement 

in this pre-certification wage and hour action. The Court heard oral argument regarding the 

motion for preliminary approval on June 4, 2015, and in response to questions raised by the Court,

the parties submitted an Amended Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement on July 13, 2015. 

(Dkt. No. 87.) The Court has reviewed the amended stipulation and attached documentation 

including the claim form and notice, and requests additional briefing regarding two matters.

First, although Plaintiff withdrew her claim pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act 

of 2004 (“PAGA”) in her Revised Second Amended Complaint, the proposed settlement includes 

a release of all PAGA claims. (Dkt. No. 61.) Further, despite the release, no civil penalties are to 

be paid under the settlement in accordance with PAGA. See Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, 

LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 379-81 (2014) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1155 (2015) (discussing civil 

penalties under PAGA); Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1213 

(2008)(PAGA penalties are “mandatory, not discretionary”).

Second, in In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir.

2010), the Ninth Circuit held that the “plain text” of Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 3:13-cv-00222-JSC Document 88 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Procedure “requires that any class member be allowed an opportunity to object to the fee ‘motion’

itself, not merely to the preliminary notice that such a motion will be filed.” Id. at 993-94. The

notice here only advises class members of their rights to object to the settlement itself. (Dkt. No. 

87-1 at 5.) In accordance with Mercury Interactive, the notice must advise class members of their 

right to object to the fee motion either in combination with a general objection to the settlement or 

independently. The parties must also include a schedule for filing the motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs which ensures adequate time for class members to review the motion prior to the 

deadline for submitting objections. See id. at 993-94 (“The plain text of the rule requires a district 

court to set the deadline for objections to counsel’s fee request on a date after the motion and 

documents supporting it have been filed.”); Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 303 F.R.D. 611, 

622 (N.D. Cal. 2014)(amending the schedule to allow adequate time for class members to review 

the motion and file an objection).

The parties shall submit a second amended stipulation or other joint filing which addresses 

these issues by August 17, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00222-JSC Document 88 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2