Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05806/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05806-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORRIS BICKLEY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 08-cv-05806-JSW 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ORDER 

DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 233, 247 

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record 

in this case. For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit 

a revised Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing and a revised Proposed Order 

Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court also provides 

the opportunity for submission of other documents, as set forth below. The Court HOLDS IN 

ABEYANCE the Motion for Preliminary Approval pending these supplemental submissions.1

The Court’s review of this proposed class action settlement is governed by Rule 23(e) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule generally requires the Court “to determine 

whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Hanlon v. 

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 

F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). “It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual 

component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” Id. (citing Officers for Justice v. 

 

1

 The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ unopposed administrative motion requesting the scheduling 

of a telephone conference. 

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 248 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

Civil Serv. Comm’n of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

“District courts have interpreted Rule 23(e) to require a two-step process for the approval 

of class action settlements: ‘the Court first determines whether a proposed class action settlement 

deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is given to class members, whether final 

approval is warranted.’” In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2014 WL 

3917126, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014) (quoting Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, 

Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004)). At the final approval stage, the Court balances the 

following non-exhaustive factors to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement: “the strength 

of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the 

risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the 

extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of 

counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the 

proposed settlement.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (citing Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 

1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

It is less well-established what factors should guide the Court’s evaluation of the proposed 

settlement at the preliminary approval stage. “Some district courts . . . have stated that the 

relevant inquiry is whether the settlement ‘falls within the range of possible approval’ or ‘within 

the range of reasonableness.’” In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 3917126, at *3 

(quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp.2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). 

Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is appropriate if “the 

proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has 

no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives 

or segments of the class, and falls with the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust 

Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079 (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation, Second § 30.44 (1985)). 

In determining whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of reasonableness, the Court 

evaluates the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case, and balances Plaintiffs’ 

expected recovery against the value of the settlement offer. Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 

No. 13-cv-04065-VC, 2016 WL 1394236, *4 (N.D. Cal. April 7, 2016) (quotations and citations 

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 248 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

omitted). 

The Northern District of California provides procedural guidance for class action 

settlements, available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance. 

The Court has reviewed the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 

235-1) and finds that it generally falls within the range of possible approval. The same is not true, 

however, of the proposed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing (Dkt. No. 235-

2) (the “Notice”) and Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement (Dkt. No. 235-3) (the “Proposed Order”). 

Accordingly, the Court is tentatively inclined to grant the motion for preliminary approval, 

subject to the submission of an appropriate revised notice of proposed class action settlement and 

hearing and revised proposed order. The parties may, but need not, file a supplemental motion, 

not to exceed ten pages, as well as an optional supplemental declaration, to show good cause 

regarding any of the issues raised below. These revised documents should address the following 

concerns. 

1. Paragraph III.B. of the Notice states that class members must submit any objection 

to the proposed settlement in writing in order to appear at the final approval 

hearing, and that any written objections shall state each specific reason and any 

legal support for each objection. This requirement differs from the Northern 

District of California’s procedural guidance for class action settlements, and the 

Court declines to impose such a requirement on objectors. The Notice should make 

clear that objections may be submitted in writing, but that opportunity will be 

provided at the hearing for all objections to the settlement to be presented to the 

Court, regardless of whether a written statement has been filed previously. 

2. Paragraph III.B. of the Notice also requires that all written objections must be 

mailed to three separate addresses, none of which is this Court. No good cause has 

been shown to impose such a burdensome requirement on objectors. The notice 

should instruct class members who wish to object to the settlement to send their 

written objections only to the Court. All objections will be scanned into the 

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 248 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

electronic case docket and the parties will receive electronic notices of filing. 

Language that the parties may use for this purpose, absent a showing of good cause 

why other language is more appropriate, is set forth in this Court’s Procedural 

Guidance for Class Action Settlements. 

3. The Court suggests that Paragraph VI.4. of the Notice additionally advise class 

members that they may check the Court’s calendar, which is available via a link at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/jsw, to confirm that the date for the final approval hearing 

has not been changed. 

4. Paragraph 3 of the Proposed Order refers to the class and subclasses previously 

certified, but only describes the class. Paragraph 4 of the Proposed Order states 

that the Court preliminary certifies, for settlement purposes, certain subclasses. 

The parties shall revise these paragraphs to accurately reflect the class and 

subclasses that have been certified, or, if seeking to amend the definition of either 

the class or the subclasses, shall expressly address in their supplemental motion any 

differences between the proposed settlement class and subclasses and the class and 

subclasses previously certified. 

5. Paragraphs 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the Proposed Order appear to be unnecessary and/or 

redundant at this stage of the proceedings, and are ambiguous with regard to 

whether they prematurely seek final approval of various aspects of the settlement at 

this preliminary stage. Absent a showing of good cause in the supplemental 

motion, the Court is tentatively inclined to hold that all such paragraphs should be 

removed from the Proposed Order. 

6. Likewise, regarding Paragraph 8 of the Proposed Order, the Court is tentatively 

inclined to approve the appointment of CPT Group, Inc., as the Settlement 

Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure. However, absent a 

showing of good cause, it is unclear why the appointment for the purpose of the 

processing of payments under the Settlement Agreement is appropriate at this stage 

of the proceedings. 

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 248 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

of P

for

201

we

doc

not

par

sup

sup

Da

7.

8.

9.

For the 

Proposed Cl

r Preliminary

16. The part

ell as an optio

cuments. An

Additio

tice and for t

rties may cal

pplemented M

The Co

pplemental s

IT IS S

ated: April 25

Paragraphs 

seeking to b

that are not 

supplementa

with a singl

The Propose

accurately f

The Propose

hearing, Pla

concerning 

communica

foregoing re

lass Action S

y Approval o

ties may, bu

onal supplem

ny oppositio

onally, the pa

the final app

lculate such 

Motion for P

ourt HOLDS 

submissions.

SO ORDER

5, 2016 

11-15 of the

be excluded f

set forth in t

al motion, th

e paragraph 

ed Order sho

filled in prior

ed Order sho

aintiffs’ coun

requests for 

tions receive

easons, the C

Settlement an

of Class Acti

ut need not, f

mental decla

on or respons

arties are req

proval hearin

a proposed s

Preliminary A

IN ABEYA

RED. 

5

e Proposed O

from, or to o

the Notice. 

he Court is te

incorporatin

ould include

r to the mail

ould include

nsel shall pro

exclusion fr

ed in respon

Court hereby

nd Hearing a

ion Settleme

file a short su

aration, in co

se to the revi

quested to fil

ng, similar to

schedule bas

Approval by

ANCE the M

Order purpor

object to, the

Absent a sho

entatively in

ng by referen

e a provision 

ling of the N

e a paragraph

ovide the Co

rom the clas

nse to the No

y ORDERS P

and a revised

ent. These re

upplemental

onnection wi

ised docume

le a stipulate

o the schedul

sed on the C

y May 31, 20

Motion for Pre

JE

Un

rt to impose 

e settlement 

owing of go

nclined to rep

nce the prov

n that all blan

Notice. 

h providing t

ourt with upd

s, objections

otice. 

Plaintiffs to 

d Proposed O

evised docum

l motion, not

ith their filin

ents is due M

ed revised pr

le set forth i

Court’s intent

016. 

eliminary Ap

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

upon class m

various requ

od cause in 

place these p

visions of the

nks in the No

that at the fin

dated inform

s, or other 

submit a rev

Order Grant

ments are du

t to exceed t

ng of these re

May 16, 2016

roposed sche

in Docket No

tion to rule o

pproval pen

WHITE 

District Judg

members 

uirements 

the 

paragraphs 

e Notice . 

otice shall be

nal approval

mation 

vised Notice

ting Motion 

ue May 9, 

en pages, as

evised 

6. 

edule for 

o. 244. The 

on the 

ding these 

ge 

e

l

e

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 248 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 5