Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

- 1 -

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA DITTMAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 14cv1156-LAB (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

The Court grants the parties’ motion for preliminarily approval of the class action

settlement with Costco subject to the following findings:

1. The Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 147-2) is preliminarily approved as it appears fair, 

reasonable, and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Class counsel has provided the Court with 

enough information to find that settlement is in the best interest of everyone involved.

2. The Settlement Class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and shall consist 

of all pharmacists and pharmacy managers employed in a California warehouse by 

Defendant at any time during the period from April 3, 2010, through August 14, 2017.

3. The Settlement protects the rights of any members who object to the terms. Objectors may 

exclude themselves from the Settlement and file any claims they have against Defendant, or 

they may object to the Settlement and voice their concerns at the final approval hearing. But 

any class members who fail to follow the procedures outlined in the Settlement and Class 

Notice will waive their right to make any objections to the Settlement.

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 153 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 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

4. The Court appoints Marjan Ataipour and Brian Kim as Class Representatives fit to represent 

the Class.

5. The Court appoints Capstone Law APC; Gartenberg Gelfand, Hayton LLP; and Caskey & 

Holzman as Class Counsel. Counsel have the requisite experience handling class actions.

6. The Court appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator.

7. The Court approves the proposed Class Notice as a reasonable method of alerting Class 

Members that satisfies due process. The Class Notice shall be sent to Class Members in 

accordance with the schedule below and the procedure laid out in the Settlement. 

8. The schedule below sets the key dates for final approval of the Settlement:

Date Event

August 24, 2017 Last day for Defendant to produce the Class

List to the Settlement Administrator.

September 4, 2017 

(Or not later than 10 days after Defendants 

produce the Class List to the Settlement 

Administrator.)

Last day for the Settlement Administrator to 

mail the Class Notice to all Class Members.

October 12, 2017 

(Or at least 7 days before the Response 

Deadline.) 

Last day for Plaintiffs to file the Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class 

Representative Enhancement Payments.

October 19, 2017 

(Or not later than 45 days after the Settlement 

Administrator mails the Class Notice.)

Last day for Class Members to submit 

Requests for Exclusion or objections to the 

Settlement.

November 3, 2017 Last day for Plaintiffs to file the Motion for 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. 

December 4, 2017 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees, Costs, and Class Representative 

Enhancement Payments.

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 153 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 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

9. The Settlement provided for continuing jurisdiction of the “Court.” (Dkt. 147-2 at ¶ 64.) The 

parties don’t need to change that provision, but must file a consent to continuing jurisdiction 

by a magistrate judge signed by both parties and counsel. Standing Order § 3.

10. The Court advises Class Counsel to read Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d. 938 (9th Cir. 

2003) and In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) to ensure 

that their motions for fees and enhanced awards complies with these cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 153 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3