Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05954/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05954-3/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN NELSON, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PITNEY BOWES, INC. and PITNEY BOWES

GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05954 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 14, 2008 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:06-cv-05954-JSW Document 45 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court tentatively DENIES parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the

class settlement. The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) When, as here, the parties enter into a settlement agreement before the Court has

certified the class, the court “must pay undiluted, even heightened, attention to class

certification requirements....” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.

1998) (internal quotes and citation omitted); see also Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527

U.S. 815, 848-49 (1999) (“When a district court, as here, certifies for class action

settlement only, the moment of certification requires heightened attention.”). The

parties did not provide the Court with any argument or authority demonstrating that

certification of the proposed class would be proper. In light of the heightened scrutiny

the Court must give to the issue of certification, how can the Court approve certification

for settlement purposes on this record? 

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the parties are required to provide notice to the

appropriate federal and state officials “[n]ot later than 10 days after a proposed

settlement of a class action is filed in court.” Have the parties provided the required

notice? If so, when did they provide such notice?

(3) Whether to reward named representatives for their efforts is within the Court’s

discretion. See, e.g., Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D.

Cal. 1995) (citations omitted). Courts may consider the following criteria in

determining whether to provide incentive awards: “(1) the risk to the class representative

in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal

difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort

spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal

benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation.” 

Id. (citations omitted). 

(a) The parties have not provided any evidence demonstrating the proposed

incentive award is justified based on the factors listed above. Were the parties

Case 3:06-cv-05954-JSW Document 45 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

planning to provide additional information in support of this request? If so, by

when?

(b) If the Court declined to provide incentive awards, approximately how much

would the named representative receive under the proposed settlement?

(c) If the Court declined to award the incentive award, would this change void the

settlement?

(4) The parties have not proposed a date for a hearing on the final approval. When do the

parties suggest having this hearing?

(5) By when does Plaintiff intend to seek approval for the requested attorneys’ fees?

(6) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: March 13, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05954-JSW Document 45 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3