Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01565/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01565-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

13cv1565-PCL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOMI TAPIA, individually and on 

behalf of other members of the general 

public similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZALE DELAWARE INC. d/b/a ZALE 

CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv1565-PCL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”). (Doc. 115.) Because the Settlement is 

unopposed, the Court took the matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7.1(d). After reviewing Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court 

concludes that the settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore 

GRANTS the Preliminary Settlement Motion.

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
2

13cv1565-PCL

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant on July 3, 2013. (Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiff alleges that she and “all other class members were and are currently denied the 

benefits and protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and the 

California labor Code, due to the institutionalized pay practices of Defendant.” (Doc. 13 at 

7.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) includes claims Defendant violated 

various sections of the California Labor Code, FLSA, and contains a representative action 

for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). (Id.)

2. Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective Action Certification

Plaintiff moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and to 

conditionally certify a collective action under the FLSA. (Doc. 44.) On April 6, 2016, 

District Judge Bashant granted Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 76.) The Court certified for class 

treatment under Rule 23 Plaintiff’s (1) California unpaid overtime claim (id. at 4-8), (2) 

inaccurate wage statement claim (id. at 8-9), (3) meal period claim (id. at 10-13), (4) rest 

break claim (id. at 13-15), and (5) waiting-time penalties claim (id. at 15-23). Thus, the 

Court certified a class of “[a]ll current and former hourly employees of [Defendant] who 

were designated by [Defendant] as non-exempt and who worked in California any time 

between July 3, 2009, and the trial of this matter.” (Id. at 21-22.)

Judge Bashant also granted Plaintiff’s request to conditionally certify a collective 

action under the FLSA based on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant failed to pay overtime 

compensation. (Doc. 76 at 19-21.) As such the Court conditionally certified a collective 

action of “[a]ll current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale 

Corporation who were designated by Zale as non-exempt and who worked in the United 

States any time between July 3, 2010 and the trial of this matter.” (Id. at 22.)

Defendant moved to decertify the Conditionally Certified FLSA Class and Rule 23 

Overtime Class pursuant to Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse 

Partnership, 821 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). (Doc. 85.) That motion was denied. (Doc. 99.) 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
3

13cv1565-PCL

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

Plaintiff informed the Court on December 30, 2016 that the case had settled and the parties 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to oversee settlement approval on March 29, 

2017. (Docs. 112, 122.)

SETTLEMENT TERMS

The parties have submitted a comprehensive settlement document with 

approximately twenty pages of substantive terms, (see generally Settlement Agreement), 

and several documents related to class notice, (Doc. 117-2 at 24-29 (notice), 31-32 (claim 

form), 34-35 (opt-out form). The Settlement Class is defined as “all non-exempt, hourlypaid employee who worked for Zale in California during the Class Period.”

1

(Doc. 117-2 

at 3.) This includes approximately 2,480 putative Class Members. (Doc. 115-3 at 3.) 

The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Fund of $1,800,000 to be used 

to pay:

(1) a proposed Class Representative Award of $10,000; (2) PAGA penalties 

of $20,000 in which $15,000 shall be awarded to California Labor & 

Workforce Development Agency and the remaining $5,000 is allocated to 

class members and is included in the Payout Fund; (3) a payment of no more 

than $29,276.31 paid as fees to the third-party Claims Administrator; (4) a 

Fee Award to Class Counsel not to exceed 28% of the Settlement 

Agreement, totaling $504,000; (5) a Costs Award to Class Counsel not to 

exceed $6,000; (6) the remaining funds, totaling approximately 

$1,230,723.69 will be available to pay class members on a claims-made 

basis. 

(Doc. 115-1 at 8-9.) The average recovery to class members is estimated to be 

approximately $500, to be determined based on the number of workweeks the class 

member worked for Zale. (Id. at 9.) Though class members will be paid on a claims-made 

 

1 The parties will jointly move to dismiss the nation-wide FLSA claim without prejudice at the Final 

Approval Hearing. (Doc. 117-2 at 7.)

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
4

13cv1565-PCL

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

basis, Zale will pay, at minimum, $504,000 to the Settlement Fund and will make available 

additional funds should additional claims be made. Should the claims made total less than 

the original $504,000, the difference between the aggregate value of the claims and 

$504,000 will escheat to the Industrial Relations Unpaid Wages Fund maintained by the 

California Department of Finance. (Id.)

RULE 23 PRELIMINARY FAIRNESS DETERMINATION

Because the Rule 23 Class has already been certified, the Court next must make a 

preliminary determination as to whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and 

adequate” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(C). Relevant factors to this 

determination include: 

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 state 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 v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

I. Strength of Plaintiff’s Case

In order to succeed on the merits, Plaintiff would have to prove that Defendant’s

practices and policies were fraudulent. (See generally FAC.) Zale denies wrongdoing and

that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief at law or equity. (See generally Defendant’s Answer 

to FAC, Doc. 14.) Plaintiff, however, estimates Zale’s potential liability exposure on the 

claims to be in excess of $5 million. (Doc. 13 at 3.) Additionally, the Settlement Agreement

is the result of arm’s-length negotiations conducted over several months, including each 

Party’s individual discovery and valuation of the case and two full-day mediation sessions 

before experienced mediators. (Doc. 115-1 at 11.) The parties agree that the Settlement 

offers class members a tangible and guaranteed monetary benefit while allowing class 

members to avoid the time and uncertainty of further litigation and appeal. The Court 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
5

13cv1565-PCL

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

agrees and thus finds that this factor weighs in favor of the $1.8 million settlement being 

fair, reasonable, and adequate.

II. Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation

Were the case to proceed to further litigation rather than settlement, the Parties 

would each bear substantial risk and a strong likelihood of protracted and contentious 

litigation. Even though the Parties have agreed to settle this action, they fundamentally 

disagree regarding the validity of Plaintiff’s claims and that class treatment is appropriate 

for any purpose other than the instant settlement. (Doc. 117-2 at 7.) Additionally, the 

Parties engaged in motions for summary judgment and to compel that were stayed once the 

Parties settled. (Doc. 114.) Those stayed motions, combined with Defendant’s denial of all 

claims and class treatment, suggests that these issues would be vigorously (and therefore 

costly) litigated were there to be further litigation. Given the foregoing, this factor weighs 

in favor of the settlement being fair, reasonable, and adequate.

III. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout Trial

Plaintiffs, as previously stated, have agreed that the FLSA claim is no longer tenable.

The Class has been certified and a Motion to Decertify was denied. Weighed against the 

fact that Defendant does not object to the Class’ continued certification for the purposes of 

this settlement, this factor also weighs in favor of the settlement being fair, reasonable, and 

adequate.

IV. Amount Offered in Settlement

Defendant has agreed to pay up to $1.8 million to settle this lawsuit. (Doc. 117-2 at 

13-14.) The crux of Plaintiff’s claims are that Zale failed to pay the class members the 

entirety of their earned wages. Because Zale has data regarding each impacted class 

member, which it provided to Plaintiff, the proof of each class member’s damages is largely 

calculable and less prone to subjective considerations. Indeed, the Parties note that the 

Settlement Agreement provides for an approximately $500 average recovery per class 

member, however that amount may fluctuate depending on the number of workweeks spent 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
6

13cv1565-PCL

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

employed by Zale. (Doc. 115-1 at 11.) Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the 

settlement being fair, reasonable, and adequate.

V. Extent of Discovery Completed and State of Proceedings

Prior to the agreed-upon settlement, the Parties engaged in over three years of pretrial litigation. This included attending a pre-certification mediation before Hon. Leo 

Pappas (Ret.), Rule 26 initial and supplemental disclosures, discovery requests, document 

production, and depositions. (Doc. 115-1 at 6-7.) Both Class Counsel and Defense Counsel 

gained significant knowledge of the relevant facts and law throughout the discovery 

process and through independent investigation and evaluation. Before oral argument on the 

Motions for Summary Judgment, the Parties attended a second mediation before Hon.

Herbert Hoffman (Ret.), ultimately leading to the instant settlement. (Id. at 6.) Accordingly, 

it appears the Parties have entered into the Settlement agreement with a strong working 

knowledge of the relevant facts, law, and strengths and weaknesses of their claims and 

defenses. Given all of the above, this factor weighs in favor of the proposed settlement 

being fair, reasonable, and adequate.

VI. Experience and Views of Counsel

“The recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of 

reasonableness.” Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979). Here, 

Class Counsel believes the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the 

best interest of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 115-1 at 12.) Furthermore, in the present case 

the presumption of reasonableness is warranted based on Class Counsel’s expertise in 

complex litigation, familiarity with the relevant facts and law, and significant experience 

negotiating other class and collective action settlements. (Doc. 115-2 at 2.) Given the 

foregoing, and affording the appropriate weight to the judgment of these experienced 

counsel, this factor weighs in favor of the proposed settlement being fair, reasonable, and 

adequate.

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
7

13cv1565-PCL

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

VII. Settlement Attorney Fees Provision

In the Ninth Circuit, a district court has discretion to apply either a lodestar method 

or a percentage-of-the-fund method in calculating a class fee award in a common fund case. 

Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). When 

applying the percentage-of-the-fund method, an attorneys’ fees award of “twenty-five 

percent is the ‘benchmark’ that district courts should award....” In re Pac. Enters. Sec. 

Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus 

Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990)); Fischel, 307 F.3d at 1006. However, a 

court “may adjust the benchmark when special circumstances indicate a higher or lower 

percentage would be appropriate.” In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d at 379 (citing Six 

(6) Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1311). “Reasonableness is the goal, and mechanical or 

formulaic application of either method, where it yields an unreasonable result, can be an 

abuse of discretion.” Fischel, 307 F.3d at 1007.

Here, the Settlement Agreement specifies that Defendant will not oppose Class 

Counsel’s request to the Court for approval of attorney fees in the amount of up to 

$504,000. (Doc. 1117-2 at 16.) This would be twenty-eight percent of the Total Settlement 

Amount, three percent more than the Ninth Circuit benchmark. Although the Court does 

not conclude that the attorney fee provision is fatal to preliminary approval of the 

settlement, the Court notes that counsel will need to address in their formal attorney fee 

application any arguments supporting the heightened award. Additionally, the Court will 

carefully scrutinize any class member objections to the proposed twenty-eight percent 

award.

VIII. Class Representative Service Award Provision

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that named plaintiffs in class action litigation are 

eligible for reasonable incentive payments. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th 

Cir. 2003). The court must evaluate each incentive award individually using “ ‘relevant 

factors include[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, 

the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, ... [and] the amount of time 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
8

13cv1565-PCL

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

and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation....’ “ Id. (citing Cook v. Kiedert, 

142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides an incentive award of up to $10,000 to the 

Class Representative. (Doc. 117-2 at 14.) Plaintiff Naomi Tapia declares that she “will not 

sacrifice any potential benefit to the Class for any reason, including personal gain.” (Doc.

44-3 at 3.) Additionally, Ms. Tapia has “met with [her] attorneys on this matter 16 separate 

times and... spoken on the phone on at least 25 different occasions.” (Id. at 4.) At the time 

of class certification, Ms. Tapia estimated her involvement to total approximately 27 hours. 

(Id.) Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that the current Settlement Agreement Class 

Representative Payment provision should not bar preliminary approval of the Settlement

Agreement. However, similar to the Attorney Fees provision counsel will need to address 

in their formal Class Representative Award application any arguments supporting the 

amount of the award.

IX. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Preliminary Settlement Motion is 

GRANTED.

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Because the Court has certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3), the mandatory notice 

procedures required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B) must be followed.

Where there is a class settlement, Federal Rule of Procedure 23(e)(1) requires the 

court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound 

by the proposal.” “Notice is satisfactory if it ‘generally describes the terms of the settlement 

in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward 

and be heard.’” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Grunin v. 

Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 120 (8th Cir. 1975) (“[T]he mechanics of the notice 

process are left to the discretion of the court subject only to the broad ‘reasonableness’

standards imposed by due process.”).

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
9

13cv1565-PCL

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

Here, the Parties have agreed to notify the Class, through the Settlement 

Administrator, within twenty calendar days of the Court granting Preliminary Approval. 

(Doc. 1117-2 at 9.) The Settlement Administrator will mail out Notice Packets after 

Defendant provides identification and contact information for members, and the 

Administrator will also be responsible for searching out class members’ changed addresses

should individual Notice Packets be returned as undeliverable. (Id.) Having thoroughly 

reviewed the jointly drafted Notice, the Court finds that the method and content of the 

Notice comply with Rule 23. Accordingly, the Court approves the Parties’ proposed 

notification plan.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Preliminary Settlement 

Motion. The Court ORDERS as follows:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation, and all 

terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set forth in the 

Stipulation.

2. The Court hereby approves the definition and disposition of the Settlement Fund 

and related matters provided for in the Stipulation.

3. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Stipulation and the settlement 

contained therein, including the Fees Award of $504,000.00, the Cost Award of up to 

$6,000, the Service Award to Ms. Tapia of $10,000, the $15,000 designated as the Labor 

and Workforce Development Agency’s (“LWDA”) share of any Private Attorneys General 

Act penalty claim under Labor Code § 2699 et seq., for penalty claims based on the 

Released Claims, and the Settlement Administrator’s Fee of up to $29,276.31. The Court 

finds on a preliminary basis that the Stipulation appears to be within the range of 

reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by this Court. 

The Court has reviewed the monetary recovery and prospective relief that is being granted 

as part of the Settlement and recognizes the significant value to the Class of that monetary 

recovery. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the settlement amount is fair, 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
10

13cv1565-PCL

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

adequate and reasonable as to all potential Class Members when balanced against the 

probable outcome of further litigation relating to liability and damages issues. It further 

appears that extensive and costly investigation and research has been conducted such that 

counsel for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. 

It further appears to the Court that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional 

costs by all Parties, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be presented by the 

further prosecution of the Action. It further appears that the Settlement has been reached 

as the result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive, arms’- length negotiations.

4. A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) shall be held before this Court on July 14, 

at 10 a.m. at the El Centro U.S. Courthouse, located at 2003 W. Adams Ave, El Centro, 

CA 92243, to determine all necessary matters concerning the Settlement, including: 

whether the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in 

the Stipulation is fair, adequate and reasonable and should be finally approved by the Court; 

whether a Judgment, as provided in the Stipulation, should be entered herein; whether the 

plan of allocation contained in the Stipulation should be approved as fair, adequate and 

reasonable to the Class Members; and to finally approve Class Counsel’s Fees Award and 

Cost Award, the Tapia Service award, payment to the Labor and Workforce Development 

Agency, and the Settlement Administration Fees.

5. The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the Notice, Claim Form, and 

Opt-Out Form, annexed as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Stipulation. The Court finds that 

distribution of the Notice, Claim Form, and Opt-Out Form substantially in the manner and 

form set forth in the Stipulation and this Order meets the requirements of due process, is 

the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient 

notice to all persons entitled thereto.

6. The Court hereby appoints CPT Group, Inc. located at 16630 Aston Street Irvine, 

CA 92606, as Claims Administrator and hereby directs the Claims Administrator to 

simultaneously mail or cause to be mailed to Class Members (1) the Notice (Exhibit 1), 

(2) the Claim Form (Exhibit 2), and (3) the Opt-Out Form (Exhibit 3); all by first class 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 13
11

13cv1565-PCL

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

mail no later than twenty (20) calendar days after the entry of this Preliminary Order (the 

“Notice Date”) using the procedures set forth in the Stipulation. Class Members who wish 

to participate in the settlement provided for by the Stipulation (“Settlement Class 

Members”) must complete and return the Claim Form pursuant to the instructions 

contained therein by first class mail or equivalent, postage paid, within forty-five (45) 

calendar days after the Claim Form was mailed (the “Claim Deadline”) pursuant to the 

terms of the Settlement. 

7. Any Class Member (as defined by the Stipulation) may choose to opt-out of and 

be excluded from the Class, as provided in the Class Member Notice (Exhibit 1), by 

following the instructions for requesting exclusion from the Class (i.e. by submitting an 

Opt-Out Form), as set forth in the Notice and the Class Member Opt-Out Form (Exhibit 

3). Any Class Member who chooses to opt-out of and be excluded from the Class will not 

be entitled to any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the Settlement 

or have any right to object, appeal, or comment thereon. Any written request to opt-out 

must be signed by each such person opting out. All Class Members shall be bound by all 

determinations of the Court, the Stipulation, and Judgment. 

8. Any Class Member may appear at the Settlement Hearing and may object or 

express his/her views regarding the Settlement, and may present evidence and file briefs or 

other papers, that may be proper and relevant to the issues to be heard and determined by 

the Court as provided in the Notice. However, no Class Member or any other person shall 

be heard or entitled to object, and no papers or briefs submitted by any such person shall 

be received or considered by the Court, unless on or before thirty (30) calendar days after 

the Notice Date in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, that person has filed the 

objections, papers and briefs with the Clerk of this Court and served by hand or by first 

class mail written objections and copies of any papers and briefs in support of their position 

and verification of their membership in the Class upon CPT Group, Inc. at the address 

listed above. To be valid, the papers must be filed with the Clerk of this Court and received 

by all of the above counsel on or before thirty (30) calendar days after the Notice Date in 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 13
12

13cv1565-PCL

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

accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Any individual who does not make his or her 

objection in the manner provided for in this Order shall be deemed to have waived such 

objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the Settlement.

9. All papers in support of the Settlement shall be filed with the Court and served 

on the Parties’ Counsel no later than five (5) court days before the Settlement Hearing.

10. The Settlement is not a concession or admission, and shall not be used against 

Defendant or any of the Released Parties as an admission or indication with respect to any 

claim of any fault or omission by Defendant or any of the Released Parties. Whether or not 

the Settlement is finally approved, neither the Settlement, nor any document, statement, 

proceeding or conduct related to the Settlement, nor any reports or accounts thereof, shall 

in any event be: (a) Construed as, offered or admitted in evidence as, received as or deemed 

to be evidence for any purpose adverse to the Released Parties, including, but not limited 

to, evidence of a presumption, concession, indication or admission by Defendant or any of 

the Released Parties of any liability, fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession or damage; 

or (b) Disclosed, referred to, or offered or received in evidence against any of the Released 

Parties in any further proceeding in the Action, or in any other civil, criminal or 

administrative action or proceeding, except for purposes of settling the Action pursuant to 

the Stipulation.

11. As of the date this Order is signed, all dates and deadlines associated with the 

Action shall be stayed, other than those pertaining to the administration of the Settlement 

of the Action.

12. In the event the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the 

terms of the Stipulation, or the Settlement is not finally approved, or is terminated, canceled 

or fails to become effective for any reason, this Order shall be rendered null and void and 

shall be vacated and the Parties shall revert to their position with respect to this litigation 

as of February 17, 2017.

13. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Settlement 

Hearing and all dates provided for in the Stipulation without further notice to Class 

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 13
13

13cv1565-PCL

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

Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or 

connected with the proposed Settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2017

Case 3:13-cv-01565-PCL Document 125 Filed 04/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 13