Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00660/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00660-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
Defendant
Roy Van Kempen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY VAN KEMPEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00660-HSG 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

ADDRESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN 

ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL

Re: Dkt. No. 60

On August 1, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary 

approval of class and collective action settlement based on two obvious deficiencies: (1) an 

improper opt-in mechanism for the FLSA group; and (2) an overly broad release. See Dkt. No. 57

at 14. In addition, the Court identified several other deficiencies present in the agreement, and 

stated that they would need to be remedied or explained in any future motion for preliminary 

approval. See id. at 17-20. However, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for preliminary approval fails to 

address some of the Court’s concerns. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to explain: (1) how 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that there are “two discrete settlement subclasses”--the FLSA 

overtime group and California vacation class--maps to the three settlement classes described in the 

agreement, see id. at 18 n.4; compare Dkt. No. 49 ¶ 16 with SA ¶ 8; (2) how recovery will be 

allocated to the California overtime class such that it might fall within the range of possible 

approval, see Dkt. No. 57 at 17-18; (3) the discrepancy between the settlement agreement’s 

contention that the Ambriz settlement releases all of the claims set forth in the operative complaint 

except for the overtime and vacation time claims and Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that the 

parties have agreed to fully compromise claims for late and improper termination wages under 

California Labor Code Section 203, see id. at 18; and (4) who would receive the different versions 

of the notice forms, and why, see id. at 20.

Case 4:15-cv-00660-HSG Document 64 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

The parties are thus DIRECTED to submit a joint supplemental statement addressing each 

of the above-referenced questions by January 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm.

In addition, to enable class members to review class counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees, 

class counsel shall include language in the settlement notices indicating the deadline for filing the 

attorneys’ fees motion, specifically stating the deadline for any class member objections to the 

fees motion, and informing class members that the motion and supporting materials will be 

available for viewing by request from the Claim Administrator or class counsel. See In re 

Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that under 

Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to 

attorneys’ fees motion). That motion shall be filed with the Court and posted on the settlement 

website not later than 20 days before class members’ objections are due. The parties are therefore 

also DIRECTED to submit a revised notice form that addresses the Court’s concern by January 

27, 2017 at 3:00 pm. The revised notices shall include redlined or highlighted copies clearly 

identifying the modifications.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/24/2017

Case 4:15-cv-00660-HSG Document 64 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 2