Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00785/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00785-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER PASQUALE, an individual, SONIA

GERBERDING, an individual, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

INC., also d/b/a KAISER PERMANENTE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, a

California corporation, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 08 CV 0785 MMA (NLS)

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION

TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

[Doc. No. 47]

This matter has come before the Court on the motion filed jointly by Plaintiffs Peter

Pasquale and Sonia Gerberding, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, for preliminary approval of a proposed class action

settlement. The Court held a hearing on the matter on November 9, 2009. Attorney Louis Marlin

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Greg Fisch appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

The Court, having considered and reviewed the documents, arguments, and evidence

submitted by the parties, for good cause appearing therefore, does hereby GRANT the parties’

motion, and FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Case 3:08-cv-00785-MMA-NLS Document 49 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 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

____________________________________________________________________________

Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 2

1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same definition as set forth in the

Stipulation of Settlement attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties’ motion. 

2. For settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

23(b)(3), the Court conditionally certifies the following class:

All employees or former employees of Defendant who, between

April 29, 2004 to June 26, 2009, worked for Kaiser Foundation

Hospitals in KP-IT in California with the functional job title of

Application Coordinator, Regional Application Coordinator or

National Application Coordinator, all of whom were classified as

part of the Business Consulting or Programmer Analyst job family.

3. The Court conditionally finds that, for the purposes of approving this settlement

only, the proposed Class meets the requirements for certification of a settlement class under Rule

23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the proposed Class is ascertainable

and so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions

of law or fact common to the proposed Class; (c) certain claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the

claims of the members of the proposed Class; (d) Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the proposed Class; and (e) a class action is superior to the other

available methods for an efficient resolution of this controversy.

4. If the settlement does not become final for any reason, the fact that the parties were

willing to stipulate to class certification as part of the settlement shall have no bearing on, and will

not be admissible in connection with the issue of whether a class in this action should be certified

in a non-settlement context. 

5. The Court’s conditional findings are limited solely to the claims brought on behalf

of the proposed Class. The Court’s findings are for purposes of conditionally certifying a Class

and will not have any claim or issue preclusion or estoppel effect in any other action against

Defendant, or in this Action if the settlement is not finally approved. 

Case 3:08-cv-00785-MMA-NLS Document 49 Filed 11/09/09 Page 2 of 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

____________________________________________________________________________

Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 3

6. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Peter Pasquale and Sonia

Gerberding as Class Representatives.

7. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, the law firms of Marlin &

Saltzman, and The Cullen Law Firm as Class Counsel.

8. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the proposed terms of settlement as set

forth in the Stipulation of Settlement attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties’ joint motion (including

the proposed award of attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and Award Enhancements to the Class

Representatives) are reasonable, and therefore grants preliminary approval of the proposed

settlement. Based on a review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the

settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations conducted after Class Counsel had adequately

investigated the claims and had become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of those claims.

The assistance of an experienced negotiator in the settlement process supports the Court’s

conclusion that the settlement is non-collusive. 

9. The Court finds and concludes that the Notice Packet, and the documents included

therein (Notice of Pendency of Class Action, green Claim Form, and Request for Exclusion

Form–Exhibits A, B and C, respectively to the Stipulation of Settlement), as well as the procedure

set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement for providing notice to the Class, will provide the best

notice practicable, satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 23(e), adequately advises Class

Members of their rights under this settlement, and therefore meets the requirements of due process.

10. The Notice Packet, including the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, fairly,

plainly, accurately, and reasonably informs Class Members of: (1) appropriate information about

the nature of this Action, the definition of the Class, the identity of Class Counsel, and the essential

terms of the Settlement, including the plan of allocation; (2) appropriate information about

Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s applications for the Class Representatives’ Enhancement Awards,

and the Class Counsel attorneys’ fees and litigation costs award; (3) appropriate information about

how to claim a share of the proceeds under the settlement, and about Class Members’ right to

appear through counsel if they desire; (4) appropriate information about how to object to the

Case 3:08-cv-00785-MMA-NLS Document 49 Filed 11/09/09 Page 3 of 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

____________________________________________________________________________

Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 4

Settlement or submit an Opt Out Request, if a Class Member wishes to do so; and (5) appropriate

instructions as to how to obtain additional information regarding this Action and the Settlement.

11. The proposed plan for mailing the Notice Packet by first class mail to the Class

Members’ last known addresses is an appropriate method, reasonably designed to reach all

individuals who would be bound by the settlement. There is no alternative method of distribution

that would be more practical, and any more reasonably likely to notify Class Members who may

not receive notice pursuant to the proposed distribution plan. The proposed Notice Packet and

notice plan are the best practicable notice under the facts and circumstances of this case. 

12. The proposed Claim Form allows Class Members a full and fair opportunity to

submit a claim for proceeds under the settlement. The Notice Packet, including the Claim Form,

fairly, accurately, and reasonably informs Class Members that the failure to complete and submit

a Claim Form, in the manner and time specified, will constitute a waiver of any right to obtain any

share of the proceeds under the Settlement.

13. The Notice Packet, with a self-addressed return envelope, and the manner of

distributing the Notice of Settlement and Claim Form to the Class, are approved. 

14. The Parties are ordered to carry out the settlement according to the terms of the

Stipulation for Settlement attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties’ motion. 

15. The Court appoints Epiq Systems as the Claims Administrator. Promptly following

the entry of this order, the Claims Administrator will prepare final versions of the Notice Packets,

incorporating into them the relevant dates and deadlines set forth in this order and the Stipulation

of Settlement.

16. The Court will conduct a Final Approval hearing on March 1, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

in Courtroom 5, to determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and

adequate and should be finally approved by the Court; (2) the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs

to award to Class Counsel; and (3) the amount of Enhancement Awards to award to the Class

Representatives.

Case 3:08-cv-00785-MMA-NLS Document 49 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 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

____________________________________________________________________________

Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 5

17. Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement, and Class Counsel’s motion

for awards of attorneys’ fees and costs, and shall be filed on or before February 8, 2010. Any

opposition to such motions shall be due on or before February 15, 2010. Any reply briefs in

support of such motions shall be due on or before February 22, 2010.

18. In the event the Settlement is not finally approved, or otherwise does not become

effective in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, this Order shall be rendered

null and void and shall be vacated, and the Parties shall revert to their respective positions as of

before entering into the Stipulation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2009

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00785-MMA-NLS Document 49 Filed 11/09/09 Page 5 of 5