Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-59/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX EXPRESS,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS

On August 9, 2007, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for approval of service

payments. After consideration of the papers submitted in support of the motion, the Court finds that the

proposed service payments are fair and reasonable, taking into account “‘the actions the plaintiff[s]

[have] taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those

actions, . . . [and] the amount of time and effort the plaintiff[s] expended in pursuing this litigation . .

.’” Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016

(7th Cir. 1998)). As detailed in the declarations of Guy Wallace and James Finberg, the class

representatives assisted in responding to discovery, were deposed, contributed to counsel’s factual

investigation, participated in discussions regarding mediation, and prepared to be trial witnesses. The

declarants also provided significant and valuable assistance to the class in that they were interviewed

repeatedly, participated in conference calls and meetings, and were deposed. 

The Court has considered objections filed by two declarants. Declarant Brett Hoiland does not

specifically object to the amounts of the service payments. Instead, Mr. Hoiland objects that the class

action settlement “greatly dilutes my individual claims,” and Mr. Hoiland states that he would have

pursued an individual action but for the fact that his individual claims are barred by the statute of

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 779 Filed 08/14/07 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

1

 Ms. Olmos was listed as a named plaintiff in the first amended complaint filed in June 2003,

but did not appear as a named plaintiff in the consolidated amended complaint filed in November 2003.

2

limitations. At the fairness hearing, Mr. Hoiland (through plaintiffs’ counsel) inquired whether the

Court could allow Mr. Hoiland’s individual claims to proceed despite the fact that those claims would

be untimely. The Court explained that if individual claims are not filed within the statute of limitations,

those claims are lost. Mr. Hoiland also objects that class members will receive monetary settlements

even though those individuals did not actively participate in the case. At the fairness hearing, the Court

explained that class actions are intentionally structured to allow class representatives to bring a case

on behalf of a large number of people without requiring the active involvement of class members.

Declarant Rosalinda Olmos also filed an objection. Ms. Olmos does not challenge the amount

of the declarant service award, but rather contends that she should be treated like a class representative

because she was originally a named plaintiff in this action.1

 At the fairness hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel

recognized Ms. Olmos’ contributions to this case, and the Court commends Ms. Olmos for her

significant service. However, the Court finds that because Ms. Olmos did not act as a class

representative for much of the litigation, it is appropriate that she receive a declarant service award.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the service awards. (Docket

No. 757). The Claims Administrator shall distribute the following amounts pursuant to the Consent

Decree:

(1) $30,000 each to Derrick Satchell, Kalini Boykin, Valerie Brown, Rick Gonzales, Cynthia

Guerrero, Rachel Hutchins, Tyrone Merrit, Kelvin Smith Sr., and Ken Stevenson.

(2) $5,000 each to Sheila Akins, Virgil Banks, Yolanda Canela, Bonta Clarke, Eric

Foreman, Maurice Griffin, Janet Haynes, Eric Hill, Brett Hoiland, Ingrid James, Zeno

Latin, Venturi McCray Sr., Mitchell McCoy, Rose Moncrief, Antonio Norris, Rosalinda

Olmos, Beverly Patterson, and Mimi Steel.

These amounts are separate and apart from any other recovery to which these individuals might be

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 779 Filed 08/14/07 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

entitled under other provisions of the Consent Decree.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 779 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3