Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02693/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02693-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONIE RICHIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02693-EMC 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Docket No. 59

Plaintiff Ronie Richie has filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action 

settlement, which is currently set for hearing on December 22, 2015. Having reviewed the motion 

and supporting papers, the Court hereby orders the parties to file a joint supplemental brief 

addressing the issues identified below. The supplemental briefing shall be filed within a week 

of the date of this order.

A. Scope of the Settlement

It appears that the settlement will dispose of the entire lawsuit – i.e., the certified class will 

release the claims covered by the Court’s class certification order of December 2014, and any 

uncertified claims will be released by Ms. Richie as part of her general release. If the parties 

disagree, they shall inform the Court.

B. Estimated Value of Class Claims 

Based on the papers, it appears that Ms. Richie estimated the value of the Rule 23 class 

claim at approximately $202,778 and the value of the FLSA class at approximately $36,000. See

Mot. at 4-5 (claiming that Rule 23 class will receive approximately 36% of its total estimated 

losses and that FLSA class will receive approximately 50%). Ms. Richie shall provide an 

explanation as to how she estimated these values. The Court notes that, in the operative 

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 62 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

complaint, Ms. Richie claimed “average damages in excess of $13,000 each” and an aggregate 

amount-in-controversy in excess of $5 million. FAC ¶ 2.

C. Litigation Risks

As indicated above, Ms. Richie has claimed that the Rule 23 class will receive 

approximately 36% of its total estimated losses and that the FLSA class will receive 

approximately 50%. See Mot. at 4-5. The parties shall explain why a settlement at those 

percentages is reasonable based on the litigation risks. The Court is not so much interested in 

general litigation risks, see, e.g., Treglio Decl. ¶ 27 (taking note of “the time and expense involved 

in continuing to litigate this action through any possible appeals, which could take several years”), 

but rather risks specific to this lawsuit – e.g., what nonfrivolous defenses did Defendant Blue 

Shield of California raise to the § 2802 and FLSA claims?

In addressing the specific litigation risks, the parties shall address each class claim 

separately, which will assist the Court in assessing why the FLSA class shall be getting a higher 

percentage of its total estimated losses.

D. Distribution to the Class

Ms. Richie claims that there will be approximately $91,250 for distribution to the class 

after deductions. See Treglio Decl. ¶ 19. However, given the deductions identified by Ms. Richie, 

it appears that there will be $86,250 for distribution to the class (i.e., $175,000 – $5,000 – $43,750 

– $30,000 – $10,000). Ms. Richie shall address this possible discrepancy.

E. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Based on the papers, it appears that Ms. Richie’s maximum attorney fee request shall be 

$43,750 and her maximum cost request shall be $30,000. With respect to fees, Ms. Richie shall 

provide the lodestar for this case, i.e., the number of hours worked by her attorneys and their 

hourly rates. She shall also provide some rough description of how many hours were expended on 

each major endeavor in this case (e.g., how much time was expended on the class certification 

papers).

With respect to costs, Ms. Richie shall identify what costs have been incurred to date.

///

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 62 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

F. Claims Process

The parties shall address why a claims process is necessary given that notice was 

previously given to the class for opt-out (Rule 23) and opt-in (FLSA) purposes.

The parties shall also address what will happen if not all of the class members make claims 

on the settlement funds – e.g., will there be a second distribution to claiming class members or 

will there be a distribution to a cy pres beneficiary (and if so, who will that beneficiary be)?

G. Class Notice

Page 1. The class notice should identify – on the first page and in bolded font – the 

average pay-out to a class member.

Page 1. The class notice should make clear that the options for a Rule 23 class member 

and the options for a FLSA class member are different. The class notice, as framed, seems geared 

more for the Rule 23 class alone. In addition, the class notice should summarize – on the first 

page – what basic options there are for each class (e.g., for a Rule 23 class member, submit a 

claim form, object, exclude, or do nothing). 1

Page 2. The class notice states that the release covers the “the State Unreimbursed

Expenses Claim, the Conditional Federal Travel Time Claim[,] and all claims incidental thereto.” 

The phrase “claims incidental thereto” is too vague and should be rephrased so that the class 

understands what is being released.

Pages 2-3. In the section titled “How much is the Settlement?,” the class notice should 

specify the exact dollar figure for the settlement, the requested attorney’s fees and costs, and the 

settlement administration fees. 

Pages 3-4. The class notice states (in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement) 

that, if a class member submits both a request for exclusion and a claim form, the request for 

exclusion shall be deemed invalid. The parties shall address why the settlement administrator 

cannot simply contact the class member to get clarification as to whether the class member 

intended to submit a request for exclusion or a claim form.

 

1

The Court acknowledges that options for the Rule 23 class at least are discussed on pages 3 and 4 

of the class notice.

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 62 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Pages 3-4. The class notice should clarify that a class member who objects is still a part of 

the class and will not get any compensation if he or she does not submit a claim.

Claim Form. The claim form provides that, if a class member disputes the estimated 

payment, “you must attach documents to support your calculation (e.g. pay records). [¶] If you do 

not provide satisfactory documentation to support your calculation, any claim you submit will be 

based only on the numbers listed above . . . .” The parties shall explain why documents must be 

provided to support a class member’s calculation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 62 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 4