Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05016/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05016-25/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

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

STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED 

CLASS NOTICE AND MAILING DATE

Case No.: 3:13-cv-5016 JST

1

EDUARDO G. ROY (Bar No. 146316)

JOHN R. HURLEY (Bar no. 203641)

PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.

220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415.527.0255

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL DEATRICK, et al. 

SHERRY B. SHAVIT, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 193222

E-mail: sshavit@tharpe-howell.com

STUART E. COHEN, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 213810

E-mail: scohen@tharpe-howell.com 

THARPE & HOWELL, LLP

15250 Ventura Blvd., Ninth Floor

Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Tel: (818) 205-9955

Fax: (818) 205-9944

J. KEVIN LILLY, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 119981

E-mail: klilly@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON PC 

2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel: (310) 553-0308

Fax: (310) 553-5583

Attorneys for Defendant,

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DEATRICK, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, and as 

representative of the State of California, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-5016 JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED 

CLASS NOTICE AND MAILING DATE 

Case 3:13-cv-05016-JST Document 163 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED 

CLASS NOTICE AND MAILING DATE

Case No.: 3:13-cv-5016 JST

2

Plaintiff Michael Deatrick, individually and as representative of the conditionally-certified 

settlement class, the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs and Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 

(“Defendant”) hereby stipulate and request that the Court approve a revision to the Class Notice 

approved by the Court in its ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

AMENDED SETTLEMENT [“Preliminary Approval Order”] (ECF No. 161). Although the Parties do 

not believe that the proposed revision is material, it does reflect a change to the Class Notice approved 

by the Court, and the proposed change necessitates a different mailing date. The Parties therefore jointly 

request approval of a revised Class Notice and mailing date for the reasons set forth herein.

Reasons for the Requested Relief

1. In bring his Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of 

Settlement (ECF No. 152) and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement and 

Modification of End-Date of Settlement Class (ECF No. 156), Plaintiff represented that 11,267 persons 

(in addition to those California employees who had already opted in) would be included in the 

conditionally-certified California Class. See, e.g., Declaration of John R. Hurley (ECF 156-5 at ¶ 20. 

Based on this figure and the number of persons who had already opted in to the FLSA collective action, 

it was anticipated that the settlement would provide payment to a total of 35,548 persons.

2. Based on the sum of $1,385,000 allocated to individual settlement awards under the 

proposed settlement, the average pretax payment to class members would be approximately $38.96. 

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, this figure would be disclosed in the Class Notice. (ECF 

161 at p. 10:2-6; ECF 156-2 at p. 2 § 4.) 

3. Upon issuance of the Preliminary Approval Order, Defendant Securitas USA worked 

diligently to generate and provide a class list to the settlement administrator as required by the Court’s 

Order, and provided an initial class list to the settlement administrator on April 28, 2016.

4. Based on the number of persons on the initial class list, Plaintiffs’ counsel raised 

concerns regarding the methodology used to generate the list. The Parties met and conferred repeatedly 

regarding those concerns in order to ensure that the class list properly encompassed the conditionallycertified California settlement class. These efforts resulted in two further iterations of the class list.

5. The Parties are in agreement that the third and final iteration of the class list properly 

Case 3:13-cv-05016-JST Document 163 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED 

CLASS NOTICE AND MAILING DATE

Case No.: 3:13-cv-5016 JST

3

encompasses the conditionally-certified California Class. This final list was provided to the settlement 

administrator on May 10, 2016. 

6. Based on the final class list, notice would be sent to a slightly higher number of persons 

than originally anticipated. Specifically, the FLSA collective action and the California Class would 

together encompass 36,092 unique persons rather than the 35,548 persons previously anticipated. Based 

on this figure, the average pre-tax settlement share would be approximately $38.37 rather than the figure 

of $38.96 previously anticipated.

7. The Parties, and specifically Plaintiff and his counsel, believe that this $0.59 decrease in 

the average settlement amount is not material and that the average settlement amount remains reasonable 

under the circumstances.

8. Further, because of the time required to meet and confer and generate multiple iterations 

of the class list, the settlement administrator was unable to send Class Notice by May 7, 2016, which 

was the date by which Class Notice should have been sent pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order. 

The settlement administrator has advised the Parties that Class Notice can be sent by the new requested 

date of May 20, 2016.

Effect on Final Approval 

The Court has scheduled a hearing date of September 22, 2016, for final approval. The new 

requested notice date would not require any continuance of that date.

STIPULATION

Based on the matters set forth above, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST, 

by and through their respective counsel, as follows:

• That the Court modify the date for mailing of Class Notice set pursuant to its 

Preliminary Approval Order such that Class Notice shall be mailed on or before May 

20, 2016; and

• That the Court approve the mailing of a form of Class Notice which changes the 

estimated average settlement amount from the $38.96 figure in the previouslyapproved form of notice (ECF 156-2 at p. 2 § 4) to $38.37. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned filer of this document hereby attests that 

Case 3:13-cv-05016-JST Document 163 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED 

CLASS NOTICE AND MAILING DATE

Case No.: 3:13-cv-5016 JST

4

concurrence in the filing has been obtained from each of the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu 

of their signatures on the document.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: May 12, 2016

By:

LITTLER MENDELSON PC

J. KEVIN LILLY

THARPE & HOWELL, LLP

/s/ Sherry B. Shavit 

SHERRY B. SHAVIT

Attorneys for Defendant, 

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, 

INC. 

 Dated: May 12, 2016

By:

PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.

/s/ John R. Hurley 

JOHN R. HURLEY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

MICHAEL DEATRICK, et al. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___________________________

HON. JON S. TIGAR

United States District Court Judge

May 18, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-05016-JST Document 163 Filed 05/18/16 Page 4 of 4