Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05416/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05416-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paula Donald
Plaintiff
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Defendant
Xanitos, Inc.
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

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

580 California Street, Ste. 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-1111

-iDonald v. Xanitos / Case No. 3:14-cv-05416-WHO

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

MICHAEL HOFFMAN, SBN 154481

mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com

LEONARD EMMA, SBN 224483

lemma@employment-lawyers.com

STEPHEN NOEL ILG, SBN 275599

silg@employment-lawyers.com 

580 California Street, Suite 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tele: 415-362-1111

Fax: 415-362-1112

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PAULA DONALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA DONALD, on behalf of herself, all 

others similarly situated, and the general 

public,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

XANITOS, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a 

California corporation, and DOES 1 through 

10, inclusive,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-05416-WHO

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-05416-WHO Document 73 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 5
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

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

580 California Street, Ste. 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-1111

-1-

Donald v. Xanitos / Case No. 3:14-cv-05416-WHO

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

ORDER

Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 63) and the pertinent materials filed with that motion, the 

supplemental briefing (Dkt. No. 67) and response to order to show cause (Dkt. No. 72). The 

papers filed with the response satisfied the Court’s questions concerning the settlement and, for 

good cause shown, and as more fully explained below, the Motion is GRANTED. The hearing 

scheduled for December 14, 2016 is VACATED.

The Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Class. For the purposes of 

settlement only, the Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Class, as defined in the 

Stipulation and Agreement to Settle Putative Class Action between the Parties and Addendum 

thereto (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”), meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 

Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court certifies for 

settlement purposes only the following proposed California Rule 23 Classes:

(1) All persons who provided environmental services to Defendants 

within the State of California as a contractor for Xanitos, and who 

Xanitos classified as an independent contractor; and 

(2) All persons who provided environmental services to Defendants 

within the State of California as a supervisor, manager or similar or 

equivalent designation, as an employee of Xanitos, and who Xanitos 

classified as an exempt employee.

Not later than fifteen (15) days after the date of this Order, Defendant will provide the 

Claims Administrator with a list of the names and last known addresses and phone numbers of 

the Class, including their dates of employment.

2. Nullification. This Order will be null and void and of no force or effect, and this 

action will proceed as though a class had never been certified, if the Settlement Agreement is not 

finally approved by the Court or if the Settlement Agreement, after being finally approved by the 

Case 3:14-cv-05416-WHO Document 73 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 5
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

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

580 California Street, Ste. 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-1111

-2-

Donald v. Xanitos / Case No. 3:14-cv-05416-WHO

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Court, is invalidated on appeal or terminated pursuant to its own terms.

3. Class Representative. The Court grants approval to the Named Plaintiff Paula 

Donald to serve as Class Representative with respect to the settlement.

4. Class Counsel. The Court appoints as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class 

Leonard T. Emma, Michael R. Hoffman, and Stephen Noel Ilg, of the law firm of Hoffman 

Employment Lawyers (580 California St., Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104).

5. Preliminary Approval of the Agreement. The proposed settlement set forth in

the Settlement Agreement appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable and adequate 

and is therefore preliminarily approved subject to further consideration thereof at the Final 

Approval Hearing, as provided in Paragraph 7 below. It is found that the Notice of the proposed

Settlement should be given as provided in the Agreement and set forth in Paragraph 8 below.

6. Claims Administrator. Simpluris, Inc. is approved as the Claims Administrator 

of the settlement as set forth in the Agreement.

7. Fairness Hearing. Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

Fairness Hearing will be held on March 29, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to consider final approval of the 

Agreement.1The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but 

the Final Approval Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice 

to the Class Members other than that which may be posted by the Court.

8. Notice to the Class. The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit 

and Fairness Hearing (the “Notice”) attached as Exhibit A to the Addendum to Settlement 

Agreement is approved. The Court orders that the Claims Administrator mail the Notice as set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement to the members of the Class.

9. Exclusion from the Settlement. Any member of the Class who wishes to not 

 

1 The parties may file a stipulation and proposed order suggesting a dfferent date for the fairness hearing within the 

next week in the event the date chosen by the Court is inconvenient for the parties or Claims Administrator.

Case 3:14-cv-05416-WHO Document 73 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 5
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

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

580 California Street, Ste. 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-1111

-3-

Donald v. Xanitos / Case No. 3:14-cv-05416-WHO

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

participate in the settlement may request exclusion from the class by submitting a signed request 

for exclusion to the Claims Administrator. To be effective, such request for exclusion must 

include the individual’s name, contact information, social security number, and an unequivocal 

statement that the individual requests to be excluded from the class, and it must be post-marked 

within sixty (60) days following the date of the initial mailing of the Settlement Notice Packet.

10. Objections. Any Settlement Class Members who wish to present objections to the 

proposed settlement at the Fairness Hearing must do so first in writing. To be considered, such 

objections must be mailed to the Court and postmarked on or before sixty (60) days after the 

initial mailing of the Settlement Packet by the Claims Administrator.

An objector who timely submits a written objection may appear at the Fairness Hearing 

either in person or through counsel hired by the objector provided the objector includes a clear 

statement indicating that he or she intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing. An objector may 

withdraw his or her objections at any time. No Settlement Class Member may appear at the 

Fairness Hearing or appeal from the Final Approval Order unless he or she has mailed a timely 

objection that complies with the procedures provided herein. Any Class Member who requests 

exclusion from the class may not submit objections to the settlement. 

11. At least 14 days before the deadline to object to or opt out of the Settlement, Class 

Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and class representative enhancements.

12. Website. Class counsel shall publish a website where Class Members can obtain 

more information regarding the settlement at http://www.employment-lawyers.com/xanitos.

13. Effect of the Agreement. All members of the Settlement Class who do not timely 

and properly exclude themselves from the class will be bound conclusively by all of the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement, if finally approved, and by any judgment entered upon final approval. 

Class Counsel will file returned exclusion statements with the Court as set forth in the 

Agreement.

Case 3:14-cv-05416-WHO Document 73 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 5
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

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

580 California Street, Ste. 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-1111

-4-

Donald v. Xanitos / Case No. 3:14-cv-05416-WHO

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

14. Voiding the Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, if ten percent 

(10%) or more of the members of the Class elect to be excluded from the Class, Defendant will 

have the right, in its sole discretion, to void this Settlement Agreement by serving a written 

notice on Class Counsel as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If Defendant serves a timely 

notice, then the Settlement Agreement becomes null and void and this action will resume as it 

existed immediately prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement.

15. Order for Settlement Purposes. The findings and rulings in this Order are made

for the purposes of settlement only and may not be cited or otherwise used to support the

certification of any contested class or subclass in this action or any other action.

16. Stay. All proceedings in this action, other than such proceedings as may be

necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and 

suspended until further order of the Court.

17. Use of Agreement and Ancillary Terms. Neither the Settlement Agreement 

(whether or not it is finally approved) nor any ancillary documents, actions, statements, or filings 

in furtherance of settlement (including matters associated with the mediation) will be admissible 

or offered into evidence in any action related or similar to this one for the purposes of 

establishing, supporting or defending against any claims that were raised or could have been 

raised in this action or are similar to such claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:_December 9, 2016

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05416-WHO Document 73 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 5