Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01371/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01371-1/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

3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC

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

EBONY HUDSON, an individual and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIBRE TECHNOLOGY INC., doing 

business as Student Loan Service, 

Docupop, and Student Loan Service, US; 

ANTONY MURIGU; JASON 

BLACKBURN; and BRIAN 

BLACKBURN,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ebony Hudson’s unopposed motion for preliminary

approval of class and collective action settlement in a wage and hour dispute. (ECF No. 

40.) Plaintiff had previously filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action 

settlement which this Court granted in part and denied in part on November 13, 2019. 

(ECF No. 37.) In that order, the Court preliminarily granted Plaintiff’s request to (1) 

preliminarily certify the Rule 23 class, (2) be named Class Representative, (3) and 

appoint Trenton R. Kashima and Kevin J. Stroops as class counsel. (Id.) The Court also 

sua sponte conditionally certified the FLSA collective. (Id.) However, the Court denied 

Case 3:18-cv-01371-GPC-KSC Document 42 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC

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

preliminary approval of the settlement due to Plaintiff’s failure to include a Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”) opt-in procedure as well as including provisions in the Class 

Notice concerning an opt-in procedure for the FLSA collective action settlement. (Id.) 

In response, Plaintiff has refiled the instant unopposed motion for preliminary approval 

of class action settlement and collective action settlement. Based on the Court’s prior 

order, the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice were amended to specify a separate 

FLSA Sub-Class, as previously conditionally certified by the Court. 

After a review of the briefs, supporting documentation and the applicable law, the 

Court notes the following deficiencies and inconsistencies in the motion preliminary 

approval of class/collective action settlement. 

1) The Class Notice haphazardly corrects the deficiencies noted by the Court by 

attempting to differentiate procedures between Rule 23 class and FLSA opt-in 

class. However, the Class Notice fails to sufficiently explain the hybrid nature of 

the action. See Pierce v. Rosetta Stone, Ltd., No. C 11-01283 SBA, 2013 WL 

1878918, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013). In fact, the first mention about the FLSA 

Settlement procedure is abruptly raised without explanation on the third page of 

the Class Notice. (Dkt. No. 40-2 at 41.) The Class Notice must be revised to 

provide a better explanation of the hybrid nature of the action and the FLSA opt-in 

procedure. 

2) It is not clear whether notice to the LWDA was provided as indicated by Paragraph 

7 of the proposed order on preliminary approval. Class Plaintiff must provide a 

declaration stating when notice was provided to the LWDA. 

3) The Administrator fee differs amongst the documents in support of the motion. 

First, the Class Notice, (Dkt. No. 40-2, Ex. A at 4), and the Settlement Agreement, 

(Dkt. No. 40-4, Kashima Decl., Ex. 1, Sett. Ag. ¶ 59(d)), provide for $30k in 

Administrator fees while the Motion, (Dkt. No. 40-1 at 9) and Kashima 

1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

Case 3:18-cv-01371-GPC-KSC Document 42 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC

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

Declaration, (Dkt, No. 40-4, Kashima Decl. ¶ 13) provide for $7,000 in 

Administrator fees. Class Plaintiff must explain with documentary support her 

request for Administrator fees. 

4) The Net Settlement Amount also differs in the documents in support of the motion. 

The Motion, (Dkt. No. 40-1 at 9-10), and Kashima Declaration (Dkt. No. 40-4, 

Kashima Decl. ¶ 14) lists the Net Settlement Amount as $253,562.20 (inclusive of 

FLSA settlement amount) and $240,562.50 (without FLSA settlement amount) 

while the Class Notice states the Net Settlement Amount is $225,250, (Dkt. No. 

40-2, Ex. A, Class Notice at 4). Class plaintiff must provide a supplemental 

declaration to support the correct Net Settlement Amount. 

5) The Settlement Agreement provides that any unclaimed funds will be distributed to 

the “California Unclaimed Wages Fund and held by the State until claimed by the 

class member.” (Dkt. No. 40-4, Sett. Ag. ¶ 52.) However, it appears that the 

California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) will no longer accept funds 

associated with “workers who were not located by the litigants themselves or a 

third party administrator” as of October 15, 2018. See Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Rels., 

Unpaid Wage Fund FAQs (2018), https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Unpaid-WageFund-FAQs.pdf. Instead, such unclaimed funds are to be submitted to the 

Unclaimed Property Fund administered by the California State Controller. See 

Richardson v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. C-16-06772-WHA, 2019 WL 

803746, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019). Class Plaintiff shall make the appropriate 

changes to the Settlement Agreement regarding the unclaimed settlement funds. 

6) Finally, prior to filing supplemental documents to correct the deficiencies noted in 

this Court, the Court directs Class Counsel to carefully and thoroughly review all 

documents and any proposed order submitted to the Court for error. For example, 

paragraph 9(c) of the proposed preliminary approval order states, “The Class 

Notice will inform Class Members that unless they file a request to be excluded 

from the Settlement within 45 days after the mailing of the Class Notice: they will 

Case 3:18-cv-01371-GPC-KSC Document 42 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC

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

become Settlement Class Members; they will receive Individual Settlement 

Payments under the Agreement; they will be bound by the release of Settlement 

Class Members’ Released Claims; and if they cash their Individual Settlement 

Payment check, they will thereby opt into the FLSA Settlement Collective and 

release the FLSA claims.” This FLSA procedure was rejected in the Court’s prior 

order denying preliminary approval, yet the language still appears in the proposed 

preliminary approval order submitted with the Court in support of the instant 

motion.

Class Plaintiff is directed to provide supplemental documentary support to correct the

noted deficiencies and inconsistencies and any other deficiencies and/or inconsistencies 

she herself finds on or before May 1, 2020. The hearing set on April 24, 2020 shall be 

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01371-GPC-KSC Document 42 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4