Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00729/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00729-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Guthrie
Plaintiff
ITS Logistics, LLC
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a 

representative basis, and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ITS LOGISTICS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-000729-AWI-EPG

ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO 

FILE A SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

(ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23)

Plaintiff Keith Guthrie has filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class 

action settlement. (ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23). The Court held a hearing on August 16, 2022, noting 

various concerns about the proposed settlement, primarily its fairness and reasonableness, and 

advising the parties that they could address the issues discussed at the hearing, and other issues to 

be identified in a follow-up order, in a supplemental filing. (ECF No. 28). The Court also 

indicated that it may have additional questions from its review of the motion. The Court includes 

some additional questions below.

1. The parties’ settlement agreement appears to provide for release for no compensation of 

certain claims that were not pled, i.e., Cal. Lab. Code § 204 claims (not counting derivative § 204 

PAGA penalties), and other claims that were pled, i.e., unfair-and-unlawful-competition claims. 

The Court inquires why such claims are released for no compensation. (See ECF No. 22, p. 28). 

2. The Court does not understand the rationale behind the March 9, 2020 start date for the 

Case 1:21-cv-00729-KES-EPG Document 29 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 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

2

PAGA Period. (ECF No. 22, p. 5). 

3. The Court does not understand how the PAGA estimated payment of $31 per aggrieved 

employee was calculated? (See ECF No. 22, p. 6). (Taking the $8,750 recovery amount and 

dividing it by 169 aggrieved employees yields approximately $51.).

4. Regarding the notice, the Court inquires whether the notice may (a) be translated in any 

other languages (ECF No. 23, p. 28).; (b) correct the sentence stating that counsel “will ask for 

fees of one-third ($87,500) of the Gross Settlement Amount as reasonable compensation,” to a 

request for a 25% fee (ECF No. 23, p. 47); (c) omit the requirement of the last four digits of their 

social security number, (ECF No. 23, p. 49); and (d) also provide an email address to which class 

members may send their opt-out notifications or objections to the settlement, (ECF No. 23, p. 49).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties are permitted to address these issues and 

those discussed at the hearing in a supplemental filing by no later than September 30, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00729-KES-EPG Document 29 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 2