Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00989/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00989-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

– 1 – 16cv989 

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 

JIMMIE L. DAVIS, individually and 

on behalf of others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 16-cv-989-BAS(BLM) 

ORDER: 

(1) PRELIMINARILY 

APPROVING CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT; 

(2) CONDITIONALLY 

APPROVING PROPOSED 

SETTLEMENT CLASS; AND 

(3) SETTING HEARING OF 

FINAL APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT 

 v. 

COX COMMUNICATIONS 

CALIFORNIA, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff Jimmie L. Davis filed a class-action 

complaint against Defendant Cox Communications California, LLC (“Cox”) in San 

Diego Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-2.) Cox removed the case to federal court. (ECF 

No. 1.) The operative Complaint alleges: (1) unfair competition in violation of 

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime 

wages in violation of California Labor Code § 510; (3) failure to provide itemized 

wage and hour statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226; (4) failure to 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
 – 2 – 16cv989 

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 

pay wages when due in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203; and (5) 

violations of the Private Attorney General’s Act (“PAGA”) in violation of California 

Labor Code § 2698. (ECF No. 24.) Now pending before this Court is the parties’ joint 

motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement (ECF No. 29 (“Joint 

Motion”)), which seeks an order conditionally certifying a proposed settlement class, 

preliminarily approving class action settlement, and setting a hearing for final 

approval of the settlement. 

I. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

The proposed settlement agreement (ECF No. 29-2 (“Settlement” or 

“Settlement Agreement”)) applies to 287 class members (“Class” or “Class 

Members”) defined as, “all non-exempt, non-field technical employees who worked 

for Cox in California from August 23, 2012 until January 20, 2017.” (Settlement ¶¶ 

5, 17.) The parties agree that the Class shall be provisionally certified, and that, 

subject to the Court’s approval, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik will be 

appointed as Class Counsel. (Id. ¶ 6e.) Jimmie Davis will appointed Class 

Representative. (Id. ¶ 6f.) 

Cox agrees to provide a non-reversionary fund (“gross value fund”) of 

$275,000, from which will be deducted any Court-approved attorney’s fees (counsel 

will request 25% of the fund or $68,750), costs (not exceeding $10,000), 

enhancement award for Davis (counsel will request $5,000), and administrative costs 

(estimated to be $10,000). (Settlement ¶¶ 11-13.) The parties further agree that the 

PAGA award shall be $4,000 and $3000 of the gross value fund shall be allocated to 

the state’s 75% share for the payment to the Labor Workforce Development Agency 

(“LWDA”) to extinguish any PAGA Claims arising within the scope of the release. 

(Settlement ¶¶ 11, 13d.) Class members will receive a portion of the remaining net 

fund value (estimated to be at least $178,250) based on the number of workweeks 

they worked during the class period. (Id. ¶¶ 14g, 15.) 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
 – 3 – 16cv989 

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 

Once their portion of the net class fund is calculated, class members will be 

mailed a check and will have 180 days to cash the check. (Settlement ¶ 14g.) The 

Class Administrator will send out a reminder to class members to cash the check 150 

days after mailing. (Id.) Any uncashed check amounts will be paid to the California 

Department of Labor Standards Enforcement Unpaid Wage Fund with an 

identification of the Settlement class member who failed to cash the check. (Id. ¶ 

15c.) The amounts received shall be considered wages and are subject to legally 

required withholding. (Id. ¶ 15d.) Cox will pay employer-paid withholding, payroll 

taxes, and similar expenses outside the gross value fund. (Id.) 

Plaintiff will dismiss without prejudice the meal and rest period derivative 

claims asserted in the original complaint and agree that this Settlement is not based 

upon any allegations underlying those meal and rest period claims. (Settlement ¶¶ 4, 

23.) Class members will release any claims for failure to pay the proper amount of 

overtime or derivative claims for penalties. (Id. ¶ 23.) 

The parties request that the Court appoint CPT Group as the Claims 

Administrator (“CPT”). Cox will provide CPT with the last known address of each 

Class Member, and CPT will mail notice to each Class Member. (Settlement ¶ 17.) 

Notice will include Cox’s calculation of each Class Member’s work weeks of 

employment (and will provide a mechanism for Class Members to challenge this 

calculation), as well as the resulting estimated settlement amount for each Class 

Member. (Id.) 

Class Members will be given the opportunity to object and/or opt out of the 

Settlement. Cox reserves the right of rescission if 10% or more Class Members opt 

out of the Settlement. (Settlement ¶ 22.) 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Class Certification (for Settlement Purposes Only) 

Here, the Parties seek to certify a class for settlement purposes only. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class may be certified “only if (1) the 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
 – 4 – 16cv989 

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 

class is so numerous that joinder of members is impracticable; (2) there are questions 

of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative 

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative 

parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(a). In addition to meeting the Rule 23(a) requirements, a class action must fall 

into one of the categories laid out in Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). The parties 

seek to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(3). Both Rules 23(a) and 23(b) are satisfied 

in this case. 

1. Rule 23(a) 

a. Numerosity 

The numerosity requirement is generally satisfied when the class contains 40 

or more members, a threshold exceeded in this case. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town 

of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995); Cleano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 

F.R.D. 544, 549 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The parties represent that there are 287 Class 

Members. (Settlement ¶ 17.) That number is large enough that individual joinder of 

all class members would be impracticable. Rule 23(a)(1) is therefore satisfied. 

b. Commonality 

The commonality requirement requires that there be “questions of law or fact 

common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Here, the class claims all stem from 

Defendant’s alleged violation of California Labor Code overtime requirements. 

Because Class Members here have the same or similar allegations, there are common 

questions of law and fact and Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied. 

c. Typicality 

In general, the claims of the representative parties “need not be substantially 

identical” to those of all absent class members and need only be “reasonably coextensive” in order to qualify as typical. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 

1020 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, the Named Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant failed to 

properly pay him overtime pay are identical or nearly identical to those of the other 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
 – 5 – 16cv989 

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 

Class Members. Rule 23(a)(3) is therefore satisfied. 

d. Adequacy of Representation 

For the class representative to adequately and fairly protect the interests of the 

class, two criteria must be satisfied. “First, the named representatives must appear 

able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel, and second, the 

representatives must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed 

members of the class.” Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Picture, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 

(9th Cir. 1978). Here, the Named Plaintiff has vigorously pursued the action thus far 

and appears capable of continuing to do so. (See Bhowmit Decl. ¶ 28, ECF No. 29-

2.) Counsel appear qualified, competent, and experienced in class-action lawsuits. 

(Bhowmit Decl. ¶ 29, Ex. 2.) The Named Plaintiff also has no antagonistic or 

conflicting interests with the Class Members. Although he seeks an incentive award 

in addition to his award as a class member, this does not necessarily mean he has a 

conflicting interest with the remaining class members. See In re Online DVD-Rental 

Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[I]ncentive awards that are 

intended to compensate class representatives for work undertaken on behalf of a class 

are fairly typical in class action cases” and “do not, by themselves, create an 

impermissible conflict between class members and their representatives[.]”). Rule 

23(a)(4) thus appears to be satisfied. 

2. Rule 23(b) 

The parties seek to maintain their class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Under Rule 

23(b)(3), “[p]laintiffs must also demonstrate that a class action is ‘superior to other 

available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.’” Otsuka v, 

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 251 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(b)(3)). “Where classwide litigation of common issues will reduce litigation 

costs and promote greater efficiency, a class action may be superior to other methods 

of litigation,” and it is superior “if no realistic alternative exists.” Valentino v. CarterWallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 1996). The following factors are 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
 – 6 – 16cv989 

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 

pertinent to this analysis: 

(A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling the prosecution or 

defense of separate actions; 

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already 

begun by or against class members; 

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the 

claims in the particular forum; and 

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 

In this case, the alternative to a class action would be to have the individual 

Class Members file 287 separate lawsuits. That would be both impractical and 

inefficient. Such individual litigation would consume judicial resources, impose 

additional burdens and expenses on the litigants, and present a risk of inconsistent 

rulings. Thus, the Court finds class action is superior to other methods for fairly and 

efficiently adjudicating this controversy. 

B. Fairness, Reasonableness, and Adequacy of the Proposed 

Settlement 

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the 

settlement of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.3d 1268, 1276 

(9th Cir. 1992). However, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), “the 

court may approve [a settlement that would bind class members] only after a hearing 

and on finding that [the settlement] is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(e)(2). 

In determining whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate, “a district court must consider a number of factors, including: the strength 

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

litigation; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and 

the stage of proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
 – 7 – 16cv989 

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 

governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed 

settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). There is no 

governmental participant and it is premature at this point to judge the reaction of the 

class members to the proposed settlement. Therefore, the Court considers the first 

four of these factors below. 

1. Strength of Plaintiff’s Case, and Risk of Further Litigation 

In this case, Cox does not admit liability, denies any wrongdoing and denies 

the Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages. (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 11.) Cox maintains that 

it has complied at all times with the California Labor Code and all applicable 

California and federal laws. (Id.) Thus, Class Counsel faced the likelihood of 

protracted litigation including a contested class certification motion, motion for 

summary judgment, trial and appeal, each with its own risk and uncertainties. 

(Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 18.) 

Furthermore, Class Counsel recognizes that there are legislative efforts 

underway which could make it more difficult to obtain class certification. (Bhowmik 

Decl. ¶ 20.) Even if the Class was certified, future motions to decertify were possible. 

Finally, Class Counsel faced the risk of losing the penalty claims. Without 

these penalties, the amount of the overtime underpayment claim standing alone is 

relatively small. (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 20.) Thus, although Class Counsel believed they 

had meritorious claims and that class certification was appropriate on all of the claims 

asserted (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 8), they faced risks in further litigation. 

2. Consideration Offered 

Class Counsel in this case retained an expert, DM&A, to prepare a damage 

valuation in advance of the mediation with Cox. (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 18.) Counsel 

indicates that the $275,000 gross value fund “represents roughly 100% of the alleged 

overtime damages and penalties estimate by Plaintiff, assuming these amounts could 

be proven in full at trial.” (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 20.) The Settlement amount only settles 

the overtime claims, and any other claims may be pursued on an individual basis. 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
 – 8 – 16cv989 

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 

(Id.) The Settlement requires no further participation from Class Members. As long 

as they don’t opt out, they will receive a check in the mail. (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 15.) 

Even if Plaintiff and Class Members might have received greater

compensation had they gone to trial, this does not mean that the settlement is 

inadequate. See Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 

1998). “[The] very essence of a settlement is a compromise, ‘a yielding of absolutes 

and an abandoning of highest hopes.’” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of 

the City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982). Under the 

circumstances, the Court concludes that the consideration offered in the Settlement 

Agreement is sufficient for approval. 

3. Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of Proceedings 

“[S]ettlement approval that takes place prior to formal class certification 

requires a higher standard of fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. In this case, Class 

Counsel represents that they have done a thorough investigation into the facts of the 

case, propounded discovery and engaged in mediation with a mediator well-qualified 

in wage and hour disputes. (Bhowmik Decl. ¶ 23.) Counsel reviewed thousands of 

time punch and payroll records related to Class Members. (Id.) And, as discussed 

above, Class Counsel retained a damages expert. (Id. ¶ 18.) Thus, the Court finds this 

factor also supports the settlement. 

4. Experience and Views of Counsel 

Generally, “[t]he recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a 

presumption of reasonableness.” Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. 

Cal. 1979); cf. Stull v. Baker, 410 F. Supp. 1326, 1332 (S.D. N.Y. 1976) (holding that 

the court should consider the recommendation of counsel, and weight it according to 

counsel’s caliber and experience). Here, due especially to the experience and 

knowledge of Class Counsel, their recommendations are presumed to be reasonable, 

and this factor accordingly favors approval. 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
 – 9 – 16cv989 

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 

C. Fairness Hearing and Required Notice to Parties 

1. Notice Requirements 

Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “the court must direct to class members the best notice 

that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all 

members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(c)(2)(B). The Rule directs: 

The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily 

understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the 

definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, 

issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an 

appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; 

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member 

who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for 

requesting exclusion; and (vii) the time and manner for 

requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class 

judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). “[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.” Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 120 (8th Cir. 

1975). 

The proposed settlement agreement anticipates that the parties will retain the 

services of a third-party Claims Administrator, CPT Group (“CPT”). Cox will 

provide CPT with the last known address of each Class Member, and CPT will mail 

notice to each Class Member. (Settlement ¶ 17.) Notice will include Cox’s 

calculation of each Class Member’s work weeks of employment (and will provide a 

mechanism for Class Members to challenge this calculation) as well as the resulting 

estimated settlement amount for each Class Member. (Id.) 

The Court has reviewed the proposed Notice as well as the notice procedures 

and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(b). 

// 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
 – 10 – 16cv989 

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 

2. Fairness Hearing 

Rule 23(e)(2) requires that “[i]f the proposal would bind class members, the 

court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). “The purpose of a fairness hearing is to provide 

the court with sufficient evidence for it to make an informed decision relating to the 

fairness of the proposed settlement.” UAW v. General Motors Corp., 235 F.R.D. 383, 

386 (E.D. Mich. 2006). A fairness hearing need not have all the procedures and 

protections of a full trial; it is a forum for intervenors to voice their objections and 

for the fairness of the settlement to be determined, and a court is within its discretion 

to limit the hearing as necessary to meet those objectives. UAW, 235 F.R.D. at 386; 

Tenn. Ass’n of Health Maint. Org., Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 567 (6th Cir. 2001). 

Here, in their Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to a framework for Class 

Members who either wish to opt-out or to object to the proposed Settlement. 

(Settlement ¶ 13f.) 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, he Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for 

preliminary approval of the class action settlement (ECF No. 29), and hereby 

ORDERS the following: 

1. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 

hereby conditionally certifies a class for settlement purposes only. 

2. The class shall consist of “all non-exempt, non-field technical

employees who worked for Cox in California from August 23, 2012

until January 20, 2017.” 

3. The Court hereby appoints Jimmie Davis as Class Representative.

4. The Court hereby appoints Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik as

Class Counsel to represent the Class. 

5. The Court appoints CPT Group as Claims Administrator. 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 13
 – 11 – 16cv989 

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 

6. Defendant is directed to provide the Claims Administrator the Class 

Data List as specified in the Settlement Agreement no later than 10 

business days after this order. 

7. The Class Administrator is directed to mail notice to the Class 10 

business days after receiving the Class Data List. 

8. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and 

the terms and conditions of Settlement set forth therein, subject to 

further consideration at a Final Approval Hearing. 

9. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on August 14, 2017 at 

11:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California, Courtroom 

4B (4th Floor – Schwartz), 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, 

for the following purposes: 

a. Finally determining whether the Class meets all applicable 

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and whether the Class should be certified for the purposes of 

effectuating the Settlement; 

b. finally determining whether the proposed Settlement of the case

on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement 

Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be 

approved and ordered by the Court; and 

c. ruling upon such other matters as the Court may deem just and 

appropriate. 

10. Before the Fairness Hearing, Defendant shall file with the Clerk of the 

Court proof of their compliance with the notice provisions of the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 

11. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Class 

Members will be permitted to exclude themselves from the class.

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 13
 – 12 – 16cv989 

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 

12. Briefs for the Final Approval Hearing must be filed with the Clerk of 

the Court no later than 28 days prior to the final approval hearing. 

13. The Court may adjourn the Final Approval Hearing and later reconvene 

such hearing without further notice to the Class Members. 

14. Class Members who desire to object to the fairness of the settlement 

must file written objections with the Clerk of the Court within 45 

calendar days after the notices are mailed (“Objection Deadline”). 

15. Class Members must also provide a copy of the written objections to 

CPT Group at the address provided in the Notice. 

16. All objections must include the objector’s full name, address, and 

telephone number, along with a statement of the reasons for his or her 

objection, whether or not he or she intends to appear at the fairness 

hearing, and, if the objector intends to appear, whether he or she will 

appear on his or her own behalf or through counsel. 

17. All objections must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on 

the parties’ counsel no later than the Objection Deadline. Objections that 

do not contain all required information or that are received after the 

Objection Deadline will not be considered at the Final Approval

Hearing. 

18. Any Class Member who does not file a valid and timely objection to the 

settlement shall be barred from seeking review of the settlement by 

appeal or otherwise. 

19. Any response by the Plaintiff to the objections of Class Members must 

be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than 14 calendar days after 

the objection deadline. 

20. Class Members who seek to opt out of the settlement must notify the 

Class Administrator (CPT Group) within 45 calendar days after notices 

are mailed that he or she seeks to be excluded from the class. The request 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 13
 – 13 – 16cv989 

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 

for exclusion must include the Class Member’s full name, signature, 

address, telephone number and last four digits of his or her social 

security number. 

21. Class Counsel shall file with the Clerk of this Court their application for 

attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses no later than 14 calendar days before 

the Objection Deadline, sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the 

objection period that any Class Member will have sufficient information 

to decide whether to object or opt out and, if applicable, to make an 

informed objection. 

22. The meal-and-rest-period claims and derivative claims asserted in the 

original complaint are dismissed without prejudice and the Settlement 

will not be based upon any allegations underlying those meal and rest 

period claims. 

23. The Parties are ordered to carry out the Settlement Agreement in the 

manner provided in the Settlement Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 26, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 13