Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01072/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01072-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVONNE DALTON, DIAN GARZA, 

ARMINDA GUZMAN, SHARON 

HUGHEN, ETELVINA SALGADO, 

HECTOR MIGUEL SALGADO, 

REFUGIO SANCHEZ and LUISA 

RAMIREZ FLORES, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LEE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation, dba NORTH 

COUNTY TIMES, and DOES 1 through 

50,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS 

CLASS ACTION

ORDER: 

1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

(Dkt. No. 207)

2) ORDERING MODIFICATIONS 

TO PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

3) CONTINUING FINAL 

APPROVAL HEARING

Plaintiffs are individuals who contracted with Defendant Lee Publications, Inc. dba 

North County Times (“NCT”) to deliver newspapers to home subscribers. In April 2008, 

Plaintiffs filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2008-00053545, 

alleging generally that NCT engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code, 

applicable Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 15
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

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

§§ 17200 et seq., based on a liability theory of misclassification of newspaper carriers as 

independent contractors. Plaintiffs later filed a First Amended Complaint, the operative 

Complaint in this Lawsuit, alleging nine causes of action for: failure to pay minimum 

wage, hourly wages, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to 

provide rest breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; unlawful withholding of 

wages due; failure to provide itemized wage statements; failure to keep accurate payroll 

records; waiting time penalties; and unfair business practices. In June 2008, the Lawsuit 

was removed to this Court, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On July 27, 

2010, the Court certified the Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3). 

On May 20, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part NCT’s renewed motion to 

decertify. (Dkt. No. 166.) The Court affirmed class certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for 

failure to reimburse for reasonable expenses and unfair business practices; however, the 

Court found that individual issues predominated on questions of liability and damages on 

the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims and decertified them.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of 

Settlement. (Dkt. No. 207.) Pursuant to the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class Action 

Settlement (Dkt. No. 207-3 (“Settlement Agreement”)), NCT does not oppose this 

Motion.

DISCUSSION

Prior to granting approval of a class action settlement, a court (1) assesses whether 

a class exists and (2) determines whether the proposed settlement is “fundamentally fair, 

adequate, and reasonable.” Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(internal quotations omitted). Here, the Court has already granted class certification 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and thus first turns to examining the fairness of the 

Settlement Agreement followed by the questions of a claims administrator and class 

notice.

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 15
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

3

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

I. THE SETTLEMENT

Rule 23(e) requires the Court to determine whether a proposed settlement is 

“fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” Stanton, 327 F.3d at 959 (internal 

quotations omitted). In making this determination, a court may consider: (1) the strength 

of the plaintiff’s case; (2) “the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 

litigation”; (3) “the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial”; (4) “the 

amount offered in settlement”; (5) the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the 

proceedings; (6) “the experience and views of counsel”; (7) “the presence of a 

governmental participant”; and (8) “the reaction of the class members to the proposed 

settlement.” Id. (internal quotations omitted.) Moreover, “the settlement may not be the 

product of collusion among the negotiating parties.” In re Mego Fin Corp. Sec. Litig., 

213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000).

Because some of these factors cannot be fully assessed until the Court conducts a 

final fairness hearing, “a full fairness analysis is unnecessary at this stage.” See Alberto 

v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). At 

the preliminary approval stage, a court need only review the parties’ proposed settlement 

to determine whether it is within the permissible “range of possible approval” and thus, 

whether the notice to the class and the scheduling of a formal fairness hearing is 

appropriate. Id. at 666.

A. THE STRENGTH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AND THE RISK, EXPENSE, COMPLEXITY 

AND LIKELY DURATION OF FURTHER LITIGATION, AND THE RISK OF 

MAINTAINING CLASS ACTION STATUS THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL

Both sides recognize the risks of continuing to litigate this Action. Class Counsel 

understands the uncertainties associated with complex, class-action litigation. In 

particular, on the threshold issue of Plaintiffs’ status, that is, whether they were properly 

classified as employees or independent contractors, Class Counsel acknowledges there is 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 15
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

4

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

risk that if the case were to be tried, it could become apparent that Plaintiffs’ status could 

not be ascertained by common proof, thus threatening to undo the underlying class 

certification decision. Likewise, Class Counsel acknowledges that Plaintiffs face a risk 

that they could be found to be independent contractors, not employees. Either of those 

outcomes could eliminate Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, beyond the threshold issues, and 

as detailed in their Motion, although Plaintiffs maintain that their Labor Code claim for 

unreimbursed expenses includes a claim for at least partial non-payment of mileage 

expenses, Class Counsel concedes there was some doubt whether the mileage claim 

remained in the case. (Dkt. No. 171.) Class Counsel also acknowledges that there are

additional risks, including that the Court might determine Plaintiffs lacked class-wide 

proof of actual damages, or evidence that NCT’s system of enhanced compensation did 

not adequately reimburse carriers for their mileage expenses. For instance, the parties 

strongly disputed the weight to be given to the mileage estimates in what the parties refer 

to as the Henschen Spreadsheets. Defendant further asserts that the Henschen

Spreadsheets fail to account for carrier’s widespread use of substitutes and helpers. 

Moreover, there was a further risk that the Court might determine that the IRS Standard 

Mileage Rates are not the appropriate rate of reimbursement (Dkt. No. 189), thereby 

precluding Plaintiffs from relying on those rates as the proper common measure of 

damages. Such a ruling, Plaintiffs admit, would likely foreclose class treatment on their 

mileage claim. All of these arguments were hanging in the balance of multiple motions 

in limine set for hearing on the date settlement was reached. 

Conversely, NCT also understands its own risks of litigation, and that trial of this 

matter would be costly. NCT has already expended considerable resources on discovery,

motion practice, and trial preparation. Taken together, the costs, the risks to both sides, 

and delays of continued litigation weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the proposed 

settlement.

//

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 15
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

5

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

B. THE EXTENT OF DISCOVERY AND THE STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

After over four years of extensive written and verbal discovery, discovery closed in 

this case in 2012. During the period leading up to Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification (2008 through 2010), Class Counsel served multiple sets of written 

discovery. Class Counsel took the depositions of nearly a dozen witnesses and defended 

the depositions of seven Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs obtained more than 400,000 pages of 

documents, as well as voluminous electronic data regarding Plaintiffs, retained an expert 

witness who authored an expert report, and defended the expert’s deposition. (See Dkt. 

No. 207-2, Greer Decl. ¶ 3.)

The parties settled the case on the day of argument before this Court of a dozen 

fully-briefed significant substantive and procedural motions in limine and motions to 

clarify. (See Dkt. No. 205.) The settlement came following two separate attempts to 

resolve this matter in 2009 and 2012 before Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes, and less than 

30 days prior to the date the case was scheduled for a jury trial scheduled to last 2-3 

weeks. 

Accordingly, the extent of discovery and stage of the proceedings weigh in favor 

of preliminary approval.

C. EXPERIENCE OF CLASS COUNSEL

Class Counsel have experience prosecuting class actions relating to employment 

claims, and lead Class Counsel, C. Keith Greer, has handled complex litigation for over 

twenty years. Counsel on both sides believe this Settlement is fair and reasonable in light 

of the uncertainties of continued certification and litigation. (See Dkt. No. 207-2, Greer 

Decl. ¶ 11.) Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval. See In re 

Ominvision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“The 

recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 5 of 15
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

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

reasonableness.” (internal quotations omitted); Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 

F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Cal 1980).

D. THE AMOUNT OFFERED IN SETTLEMENT

A settlement is not judged against only the amount that might have been recovered 

had the plaintiff prevailed at trial, nor must the settlement provide 100% of the damages 

sought to be fair and reasonable. Linney, 151 F.3d at 1242. There is a “range of 

reasonableness” in determining whether to approve settlements, “which recognizes the 

uncertainties of law and fact in any particular cause and the concomitant risks and costs 

necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion.” Frank v. Eastman Kodak 

Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 186 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 693 

(2d. Cir. 1972)). The adequacy of the amount recovered must be judged as “a yielding of 

absolutes. . . . Naturally, the agreement normally embodies a compromise; in exchange 

for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they 

might have won had they proceeded with litigation.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. 

Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal quotations omitted). “It is wellsettled law that a cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery 

will not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair.” Id. at 628. 

Here, Plaintiffs assert a claim for unreimbursed business expenses and a derivative 

unfair competition law claim. NCT has agreed to establish a Maximum Settlement Fund 

in the amount of three million, two-hundred thousand dollars ($3,200,000.00). A Net 

Settlement Fund will be made available to Class Members, after deductions are made for 

attorneys’ fees (estimated at $800,000.00), attorneys’ costs (estimated at $50,000.00), 

claims administration (estimated between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00), and service 

awards to the named Plaintiffs (estimated at $36,000.00), if approved by the Court. 

According to Class Counsel, the Maximum Settlement Fund of $3.2 million, less the 

anticipated deductions is estimated to bring the Net Settlement Fund to $2.27 million. 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 6 of 15
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

7

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

Class Members may file claims against the Net Settlement Fund and it is estimated that 

they will be eligible to receive payouts that amount to approximately 90% of all 

deductions recorded on NCT’s records during the relevant period. 

As explained in the Settlement Agreement, the distribution of Net Settlement 

Funds to those Class Members who submit timely claims will be determined as follows:

[NCT] will calculate the total number of points to be assigned 

to each Class Member, for purposes of ascertaining that Class 

Member’s fractional share of the Net Settlement Fund. The 

points assigned to each Class Member (“Class Member Points”) 

will be the total dollars (rounded to the nearest dollar) of 

deductions that [NCT] made from that Class Member’s 

invoices, during the Class Period, for the following expense 

items: rental charges, DMV charges, insurance charges, 

liquidated damages, bond charges, plastic bag charges, and redelivery fees. The total of all the Class Member Points so 

calculated will be the “Total Class Member Points.” The 

“Individual Claim Value” for a Class Member who timely 

submits a valid claim will be the Net Settlement Fund, divided 

by Total Class Member Points, times that Class Member’s 

Points. By this design, if all Class Members submit claims, 

then the Net Settlement Fund will be exhausted.

(Dkt. No. 207-3, Greer Decl. Ex. 2, Settlement Agreement § III.K.1.)

However, the Settlement Agreement also provides that, in the event that the “value 

of the total amount of claims timely and validly submitted is less than the Net Settlement 

Fund, then any unclaimed portion shall not be paid by Defendant. There will be no cy 

pres or other distribution of any unclaimed portion of the Net Settlement Fund.” (Id.) The

Court has some concerns about this provision. The Ninth Circuit has held that it is an 

indication of self-interest on the part of class counsel when “the parties arrange for fees 

not awarded to revert to defendants rather than be added to the class fund.” In re 

Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946-47 (9th Cir. 2011); see also

Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 12-cv-05527-JD, 2014 WL 3956463 at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 12, 2014). While the presence of a reversion clause is not per se unreasonable, see, 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 7 of 15
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

8

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

e.g., Navarro v. Servisair, 2010 WL 1729538 *1 (N.D. Cal. April 27, 2010) (granting 

final approval of a settlement despite retention of a substantial portion of the common 

fund by the defendant), the Court notes here that the possibility of reversion is an area of 

particular concern to the Court. As the remaining provisions of the settlement award 

appear fair, appropriate, and reasonable given the purposes of the California Labor Code 

and in light of the anticipated risk, expense, and uncertainty of continued litigation, as 

discussed above, the Court finds the amounts offered in the settlement to be adequate at 

this stage of the proceedings. The Parties and the Court will be in a position to more 

accurately calculate the value of the settlement and compare it to the maximum damages 

recoverable were the Plaintiff class to succeed at trial at the time of the final fairness 

hearing, after the class participation rate has been ascertained. See Harris v. Vector 

Marketing Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973 at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. April 

29, 2011) (recognizing that the actual value of the settlement can be more accurately 

assessed at a final fairness hearing). 

II. APPOINTING THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

The Parties propose that the Court appoint Gilardi & Co. as the claims 

administrator for this Action. (Settlement Agreement § III.J.) Gilardi & Co. specializes 

in providing administrative services for class-action litigation and has experience in 

administering Labor Code settlements. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

motion to appoint Gilardi & Co. as the Claims Administrator.

III. CLASS NOTICE

Class notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present 

their objections.” See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 

(1950). Moreover, the class notice must satisfy the content requirements of Rule 

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 8 of 15
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

9

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

23(c)(2)(B), which provides that 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 binding effect of a class judgment on members 

under Rule 23(c)(3).

Here, the proposed notice provides: (1) information on the meaning and nature of 

the class; (2) the terms and provisions of the proposed settlement; (3) the costs and fees to 

be paid out of the settlement fund; (4) the procedures and deadlines for submitting claim 

forms, objections, and/or requests for exclusion; and (5) the date, time and place of the 

Final Fairness Hearing. (See Dkt. No. 208 Ex. 1.) 

However, the Court has several concerns regarding the proposed notice. First, the 

proposed notice includes no clear statement of the “definition of the class certified,” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(ii). Second, the proposed notice contains no notification that class 

members may enter an appearance through an attorney if a class member so desires. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iv). Third, by the Court’s calculation, the December 19, 2014 date 

provided as the “[l]ast day for [class members] to submit a Claim Form, objection to the 

terms of the settlement, including the attorneys’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs, or 

opt out of the settlement” does not account for the administrative time needed for NCT to 

provide the Claims Administrator with addresses or for the Claims Administrator to mail 

out the notices. (See Dkt. No. 208-1 at 4.) The Court therefore finds the date “December 

19, 2014 [60 days after postmark date of Notice]” misleading and likely to lead to 

confusion. Accordingly, the Court continues the Final Approval Hearing to assure 

adequate time, as set forth below, and orders Plaintiffs to change the “December 19, 

2014” date and the Final Approval Hearing date in the proposed class notice accordingly.

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 9 of 15
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

10

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

In addition to these substantive concerns, the Court directs Plaintiffs to update the 

Court’s address in the two places listed on the proposed notice to: 221 West Broadway, 

San Diego, CA 92101. (See Dkt. No. 208-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel shall modify the 

proposed notice consistent with the foregoing. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 

Action and over all settling parties hereto.

2. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT: The Court 

preliminarily finds the Settlement of the Action, on the terms and conditions set forth in 

the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, is in all respects, fundamentally 

fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members, taking into 

consideration the benefits to Class Members; the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ 

case; the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation; and the risk 

and delay inherent in possible appeals. The Court finds that Notice of the settlement 

should be given to persons in the Class and a full hearing should be held on approval of 

the settlement.

3. CAFA NOTICE: NCT shall be responsible for serving the Class Action 

Fairness Act (“CAFA”) notice required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) within ten (10) days of 

entry of this Order. NCT may delegate this responsibility to the Claims Administrator as 

part of the Claims Administrator’s responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement. At 

least fourteen (14) days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, NCT shall file a declaration 

confirming compliance with the CAFA notice requirement. 

4. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the 

Action remains certified as a class action on behalf of the following Class Members:

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 10 of 15
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

11

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

All individuals who signed written agreements with Defendant 

to provide newspapers to home delivery subscribers of The 

North County Times, owned by Defendant, Lee Publications, 

Inc. as publisher of The North County Times, during the time 

period April 17, 2004 through November 1, 2012.

(Settlement Agreement, § II.E.)

5. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT:

For purposes of the Court considering preliminary approval, the Court continues 

the appointment of Plaintiffs Yvonne Dalton, Dian Garza, Arminda Guzman, Sharon 

Hughen, Etelvina Salgado, Hector Miguel Salgado, Refugio Sanchez, and Luisa Ramirez 

Flores as Class Representatives and LAW OFFICES OF GREER & ASSOCIATES (C. 

Keith Greer, Esq.) and LAW OFFICES OF MARCY KAYE (Marcy E. Kaye, Esq.) as 

Class Counsel.

6. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: 

a. FORM OF NOTICE: By no later than Monday, October 20, 2014, 

Plaintiffs shall electronically file a revised Class Notice which addresses the 

Court’s concerns, as set forth supra. In addition, Plaintiffs shall lodge a proposed 

order approving the same (at efile_curiel@casd.uscourts.gov).

In addition, as set forth in Class Counsel’s declaration, the revised Class 

Notice shall be translated into Spanish by a certified Spanish translator. (See Dkt. 

No. 207-2, Greer Decl. ¶ 12.) 

b. CLAIMS PROCESS: The Court approves the method of Notice as set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement and the proposed class notice. (Greer

Declaration at paragraph 12 and Greer Supplemental Declaration at paragraphs 3 

and 4 & Dkt Nos. 207-2, 207-3, 208-1 and 208-2.)

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 11 of 15
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

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

In particular, NCT shall, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, provide the 

Claims Administrator with the names, most recent known mailing addresses, 

telephone numbers, and social security numbers of all Class Members, to the 

extent NCT has such information in its records, in a readable Microsoft Office 

Excel Spreadsheet. (Settlement Agreement § III.L.1.) 

Within ten (10) days of receipt of information by the Claims Administrator 

from NCT, the Claims Administrator shall: (1) perform a search based on the 

National Change of Address Database or other similar services available to correct 

for any known or identifiable address changes; and (2) mail the Notice to the Class 

Members via first-class regular U.S. Mail. (Settlement Agreement § III.L.2.) 

Class Members will have sixty (60) days from the mailing of the Notice to submit 

claim forms, requests for exclusion, or objections to the settlement. (Id.)

In addition, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Class Counsel’s 

Declaration, Class Counsel will publish the English abbreviated form of the notice 

in the North County Times, as well as the Spanish abbreviated form of the notice 

in Enlace (Spanish language newspaper). (Dkt. No. 207-2, Greer Decl. ¶ 12.) 

The Court finds that the methods of Notice set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(c)(2)(B), due process, and constitute the best practicable procedure under the 

circumstances.

7. SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS PROCESS: The Court preliminarily approves 

the $3,200,000.00 settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate for members of the Class. 

The Court preliminarily approves the process set forth in the Settlement Agreement for 

reviewing, approving and paying claims from the Net Settlement Fund.

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 12 of 15
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

13

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

8. EXCLUSIONS: Any Class Member who desires to opt-out of the Class must 

send, within sixty (60) days of the postmark of the Notice, a letter requesting exclusion 

from the settlement to the Claims Administrator. The letter must include the Class 

Member’s name, address, phone number and last four digits of his or her social security 

number, and signature. It must clearly state that the Class Member wishes to be excluded 

from the settlement. Any Class Member who submits a valid and timely request for 

exclusion shall not be a Settlement Class Member and shall not be bound by the 

Settlement Agreement.

9. OBJECTIONS: Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of the 

Settlement must, within sixty (60) days of the postmark of the Notice, send a letter to 

the Court stating that he or she objects to the settlement, including the Class Member’s 

name, address, telephone number, email address, signature, case information (name and 

number). The letter must include the objector’s reasons for objecting to the settlement, 

and must attach to the written objection any documents supporting the objection. 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. 

10. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR: Any Class Member who intends to 

appear at the Final Fairness hearing on his or her own behalf or through counsel must 

send a letter to the Court stating intent to appear, including the Class Member’s name, 

address, telephone number, email address, the case title and case number, and signature. 

11. FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING: The Court shall conduct a hearing (“Final 

Fairness Hearing”) on February 20, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. at 221 West Broadway, 

Courtroom 2D, San Diego, CA 92101. The Final Fairness Hearing may be rescheduled 

or continued by the Court without further notice to the Class Members. At the hearing, 

the Court will consider the following issues:

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 13 of 15
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

14

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

a. whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, 

adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members and should be finally 

approved by the Court;

b. to consider the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs, as provided for in the Agreement;

c. to consider the application of the named Plaintiffs for Class representative 

incentive awards, as provided for in the Agreement;

d. whether Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, as 

provided under the Settlement Agreement, should be entered, dismissing the 

Action with prejudice and releasing the Released Parties; and

e. such other issues, as the Court deems appropriate.

12. Attendance at the Final Fairness Hearing is not necessary. Class Members 

need not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval of the 

proposed settlement. As set forth above, however, Class Members wishing to be heard 

are required to indicate in their written objection whether they intend to appear at the 

Final Fairness Hearing.

13. If the settlement is not finally approved for any reason, then this Order shall be 

vacated without further order, the Agreement shall have no force and effect, and the 

Parties’ rights and defenses shall be restored, without prejudice, to their respective 

positions as if the Agreement had never been executed and this Order never entered.

14. Any applications for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and/or a Classrepresentative incentive award must be filed with the Court and served within 30 days 

from the postmark of the Notice. After filing, any such applications shall be posted on 

the Settlement Website for review by Class Members.

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 14 of 15
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

15

Case No. 08-CV-1072 GPC NLS

15. For clarity, in accordance with the foregoing, the Court orders the following 

implementation schedule for further proceedings:

Plaintiffs shall file a revised proposed 

class notice and lodge a proposed order 

approving the proposed class notice

Monday, October 20, 2014

NCT shall provide the Claims 

Administrator with the required Microsoft 

Excel Spreadsheet 

10 days after Court approves revised class 

notice

Claims Administrator shall mail Notices 

to Class Members

10 days after receipt by Claims 

Administrator of list of Class Members 

from NCT

Plaintiff to file motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs

30 days after Class Notice is mailed

Deadline for Class Members to mail 

exclusion forms/objections

60 days after Class Notice is mailed

Deadline for Class Members to mail 

notice of intent to appear at Final 

Approval Hearing

60 days after Class Notice is mailed

Plaintiffs to file motion for final approval 

(which shall include a section addressing 

any objections)

30 days prior to Final Settlement and 

Approval Hearing (January 21, 2015)

Final Settlement and Approval Hearing February 20, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.

16. The preliminary approval hearing currently set for October 17, 2014 at 1:30 

p.m. is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 209 Filed 10/17/14 Page 15 of 15