Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02289-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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 - OAKLAND BRANCH 

SHEILA L. THORP as an individual and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALCAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California 

Corporation; ALAMEDA ELECTRIC 

SUPPLY, a California Corporation; and 

DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-CV-2289 YGR

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

*AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT*

Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

 

 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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

This matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 24, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., 

in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Due and adequate 

notice having been given to the Settlement Class (as defined below), and the Court 

having considered all papers filed and proceedings held herein, all oral and written 

comments received regarding the proposed settlement, and having reviewed the 

record in the above captioned matter, and good cause appearing thereto, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS 

FOLLOWS: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the abovecaptioned action (the “Action”), the Class Representative, Defendants Alcal 

Industries, Inc., and Alameda Electric Supply (collectively “Defendants”), and all 

members of the Settlement Class, which is defined as follows: 

 All persons employed by Alcal Industries, Inc., or Alameda Electric Supply 

 (“AES” or “Defendants”) as a non-exempt hourly employee in the State of 

 California during the period from May 20, 2009, through November 10, 

 2014. 

2. The term Settlement Agreement shall refer to the Revised Joint 

Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”) filed by the Class 

Representative on September 26, 2014 at Docket Number 70, and all terms herein 

shall have the same meaning as the terms defined in the Settlement Agreement, 

unless specifically provided herein. 

3. The Court grants final approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement 

because it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement falls 

within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to 

be the product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members 

of the Settlement Class fairly. 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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. The Court finds that the distribution by U.S. first-class mail of the 

Notice Packets constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to 

all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class and fully met the 

requirements of due process under the United States Constitution and applicable 

state law. Based on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with the 

Final Approval Hearing, the actual notice to the Settlement Class was adequate. 

These papers informed members of the Settlement Class of the terms of the 

settlement, their right to object to the settlement or Class Counsel’s Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and the Class Representative’s Incentive Payment, or to 

elect not to participate in the Settlement and pursue their own remedies, and their 

right to appear in person or by counsel at the Final Settlement Approval Hearing 

and be heard regarding approval of the settlement and Class Counsel’s motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and the Class Representative’s Incentive Payment. 

Adequate periods of time were provided by each of these procedures. No 

members of the Settlement Class objected to the Settlement Agreement or Class 

Counsel’s motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and the Class Representative’s 

Incentive Payment, and only one Settlement Class member (approximately 0.5%) 

opted out of the Settlement. 

5. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the Settlement 

Class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rules 23(a), 

and 23(b)(3). Accordingly, solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, this 

Court has certified the Settlement Class, as defined above. Because the Settlement 

Class is being certified here for settlement purposes only, the Court need not (and 

does not) address the manageability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). See Amchem 

Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). 

6. The Court approves the settlement of the Action, and each of the 

releases and other terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement as fair, just, 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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

reasonable and adequate as to the Settlement Class, the Class Representative, and 

Defendants (collectively the “Settling Parties”). The Settling Parties and the 

Claims Administrator are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

7. Except as to any individual member of the Settlement Class who has 

validly and timely opted out of the settlement, all of the claims asserted in the 

Action are dismissed with prejudice as to the Class Representative and the 

members of the Settlement Class. The Settling Parties are to bear their own 

attorneys’ fees and costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

8. By this Order, the Class Representative and Settlement Class 

Members, other than those who submitted timely and valid Opt-Out Letters 

(collectively “the Releasing Settlement Class Members”), hereby release 

Defendants and the Released Parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) 

from the Released Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). 

9. By this Order, the Releasing Settlement Class Members and Class 

Counsel shall be deemed to have released all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in connection with the Litigation and the Settlement of the Litigation. 

10. The Action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, 

permanently barring the Releasing Settlement Class Members from prosecuting 

any of the Released Claims. The Court reserves and retains exclusive and 

continuing jurisdiction over the above-captioned matter, the Class Representative, 

the Settlement Class, and Defendants for the purposes of supervising the 

implementation, effectuation, enforcement, construction, administration and 

interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Order for one year from the 

date of this Order. 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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. The Court finds that the plan of allocation for the shares of the Net 

Settlement Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable 

and that distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to the Settlement Class shall be 

done in accordance with the terms outlined in the approved versions of the Class 

Notice and Settlement Agreement. 

12. The Court hereby orders the appointment of Sheila L. Thorp as Class 

Representative for the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement. 

13. The Court hereby orders the appointment of Hernaldo J. Baltodano of 

Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K. Haines of Boren, Osher & Luftman LLP 

as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class for purposes of Settlement and the 

releases and other obligations therein. 

14. Defendants have agreed for the Claims Administrator to pay from the 

Maximum Settlement Amount in the specific amounts listed below: (i) the Claims 

Administrator its reasonable fees for its services; (ii) the PAGA Penalty Payment 

to the State of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency 

(“CLWDA”); and (iii) the Incentive Payment to the Class Representative to 

reimburse her for her valuable services to the Settlement Class. The Court hereby 

approves the payment of settlement administration costs in the amount of $11,500 

to CPT Group, Inc., the Claims Administrator, for services rendered in this matter. 

The Court hereby approves the payment of the PAGA Penalty to the CLWDA in 

the amount of $5,000. The Court also approves the Incentive Payment to the Class 

Representative in the amount of $5,000. The Court finds that these payments are 

fair and reasonable. The Claims Administrator is directed to make the foregoing 

payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

15. The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel the amount of $135,000 

for attorneys’ fees and the amount of $29,689.04 for costs. Based on Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class Counsel’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Class 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 

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

Representative Incentive Payment, the Court finds that Class Counsel advanced 

legal theories on a contingent-fee basis, that their efforts resulted in a substantial 

monetary recovery for the Settlement Class, and that the requested attorneys’ fees 

awarded are reasonable after comparing the lodestar calculation. The Court finds 

this payment to be fair and reasonable. The Claims Administrator is ordered to 

wire these funds to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement. Moreover, the Court finds that the January 23, 2015 posting of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Representative Enhancement, Attorney’s Fees, and 

Costs satisfied the notice and objection opportunity required by In re Mercury 

Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court 

finds that no Settlement Class Member objected to the amount of any of the 

requested awards in this matter, which weighs in favor of granting the requested 

awards of costs, attorney’s fees, and Class Representative enhancement. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 84 and 86. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: March 27, 2015 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-02289-YGR Document 92 Filed 03/27/15 Page 6 of 6