Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03480/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03480-9/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAY TRIPP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CROSSMARK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03480-WHO 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING 

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION

Having granted preliminary approval of class action settlement on January 26, 2015, 

directed notice of the proposed settlement to all Settlement Class Members, having read and 

considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award 

of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Litigation Expenses, Claims Administration Fees and 

Service Award/General Release Payments, and all supporting papers, considered the argument of 

counsel at the fairness hearing, and with GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, I now ORDER, 

ADJUDGE, AND DECREE THAT:

1. The notice of settlement, which was mailed to all Settlement Class Members as 

previously ordered by the Court, described the terms of the proposed settlement, 

provided the date of the fairness hearing, the manner in which Class Members 

could object to or participate in the settlement, and the manner in which Class 

Members could opt out of the class. The Court finds that it was the best notice 

practicable under the circumstances and complied fully with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), due process and all other applicable 

laws. The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to 

all Settlement Class Members to participate in the proceedings convened to 

determine whether the proposed Settlement should be given final approval. No 

Case 3:13-cv-03480-WHO Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

objection was filed to the settlement and three Settlement Class Members opted 

out of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court hereby determines that all 

Settlement Class Members other than the three opt-outs, Barbara Martin, Diane 

Bechtold and Kim Overbeck, are bound by this Judgment and Final Order.

2. The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and is the product of 

good faith, arm’s length negotiations between the parties, and fully complies with 

all applicable provisions of law. Accordingly, the Court finally and unconditionally 

approves the Settlement, and specifically: 

a. Approves the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,400,000, plus the employer’s 

share of payroll taxes, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Within the deadline 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), 

Defendants shall deposit with the Claims Administrator the amount required 

to fund all payments required by this Judgment and Final Order;

b. Approves that $15,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount be allocated to 

resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of 

that amount, or $11,250, be paid to the California Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency;

c. Approves that $8,000 each be paid to the named Plaintiffs and Settlement 

Class Representatives Tripp and Solberg and $5,000 to named Plaintiff and 

Settlement Class Representative Smith in exchange for each providing 

Defendants with a general release of claims and as a service award, which is 

justified by the time and effort expended by each of the named Plaintiffs on 

behalf of the Settlement Class and the risk each assumed in bringing this 

action. These amounts shall be paid according to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement; 

d. Approves Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee request of $350,000, which 

represents less than Class Counsel’s actual lodestar, as fair and reasonable. 

Case 3:13-cv-03480-WHO Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees shall be paid according to the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement;

e. Approves Class Counsels’ request for reimbursement of litigation expenses of 

up to $18,566.80, which shall be paid according to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement;

f. Approves payment to CPT Group, the Claims Administrator, of $50,000 as 

costs and expenses of settlement administration. The requested payment is 

reasonable and shall be paid according to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement;

g. Approves distribution of any funds represented by uncashed settlement 

checks to any later discovered Settlement Class Members or Settlement Class 

Members who submit late but otherwise valid clams. If there are no such 

recipients or if any funds remain, all remaining amounts shall be paid to the 

California Department of Industrial Relations Labor Code § 96.7 Unpaid 

Wage Fund; and 

h. Approves as timely any otherwise valid claims postmarked no later than June 

17, 2015 and the payment from the Net Settlement Fund of amounts 

determined by the Claims Administrator to be due to Settlement Class 

Members who are determined to be Authorized Claimants in the time and 

manner specified in the Settlement Agreement.

3. This Judgment and Final Order shall have a res judicata effect and bar each 

named Plaintiff and each Settlement Class Member (except those identified in 

Exhibit A) from bringing any action asserting any Released Claims against any of 

the Released Parties.

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement and this Judgment and Final Order.

5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment in accordance with this Judgment 

and Final Order.

Case 3:13-cv-03480-WHO Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. This action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7. The consolidated action Smith v. Crossmark, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04461 

WHO, shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 18, 2015

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States Court District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03480-WHO Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 4