Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04748/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04748-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bugra Bakan
Plaintiff
Citibank (West), F.S.B.
Defendant
Citibank California
Defendant
Citibank, F.S.B.
Defendant
Citicorp Investment Services
Defendant
Citigroup, Inc.
Defendant
Cang Nguyen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

RYBICKI & BLEVANS, LLP 

Richard C. Rybicki (CSB 160096) 

Brandon R. Blevans (CSB 197281) 

Patrick B. Sutton (CSB 223186) 

50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 311 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 

Telephone: 707.524.7000 

Facsimile: 707.546.6800 

WEINBERG, HOFFMAN, CASEY & ROPERS 

Joseph Hoffman (CSB 114020) 

679 Bridgeway 

Sausalito, CA 94965 

Telephone: 415.289.0243 

Facsimile: 415.289.0240 

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. SIMONINI 

David M. Simonini (CSB 64615) 

679 Bridgeway 

Sausalito, CA 94965 

Telephone: 415.289.0242 

Facsimile: 415.289.0240 

Attorneys for the Preliminary Settlement Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BUGRA BAKAN, an individual, and CANG NGUYEN, an 

individual, each on his own behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITIGROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CITIBANK, F.S.B., 

a Savings Association, dba CITIBANK CALIFORNIA; 

CITIBANK (WEST), F.S.B., a Savings Association; CITICORP 

INVESTMENT SERVICES, a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER RE FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

Date: October 6, 2006 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

JUDGMENT

 This matter was heard on motion for final approval of the settlement set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement and Stipulation and Stipulated Amendment to Settlement Agreement. Due and adequate 

notice having been given to the Class, and the Court having considered the Agreement and Stipulation,

Stipulated Amendment to Settlement Agreement, all papers filed and proceedings had herein, and all 

oral and written comments received regarding the proposed settlement, and having reviewed the 

record in this litigation, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Court, for purposes of this Judgment, adopts all defined terms as set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement and Stipulation, as amended by the Stipulated Amendment to Settlement 

Agreement, filed herein (the “Stipulated Settlement”). 

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, the Class 

Representatives, the other members of the Settlement Class, and all defendants. 

3. The Court finds that the distribution of Notice of Pendency of Class Action and 

Proposed Settlement as provided for in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, 

Setting Fairness Hearing and Appointing Special Masters constituted the best notice practicable under 

the circumstances to all Class Members and fully met all applicable due process requirements. Based 

on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with the Final Approval Hearing, the actual 

notice to the Class was adequate. 

4. The Court finds in favor of settlement approval. 

5. The Court approves the settlement of the above-captioned action, as set forth in the 

Stipulated Settlement, and each of the releases and terms thereof, as fair, just, reasonable and adequate 

as to the Settlement Class. The Parties are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth 

in the Stipulated Settlement. 

6. Except as to any individual claim of those Opt-Out Plaintiffs (identified in Attachment 

A hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class (who shall be 

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

deemed excluded from and not Members of the Settlement Class), all of the Released Claims are 

dismissed with prejudice as to the Class Representatives and the other members of the Settlement 

Class. The Parties are to bear their own costs except as otherwise provided by the Stipulated 

Settlement or the Court. 

7. Solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, the Court has certified a class of all 

Settlement Class Members, as that term is defined in and by the terms of the Stipulated Settlement, 

and the Court deems this a definition sufficient for purposes of due process and Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 23. 

8. With respect to the Settlement Class and for purposes of approving this settlement, the 

Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Settlement Class Members are ascertainable and so numerous 

that joinder is impracticable, (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class, 

and there is a well-defined community of interest among Settlement Class Members, (c) the claims of 

class representatives Bugra Bakan and Cang Nguyen are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class 

Members, (d) the class representatives have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the 

Settlement Class Members, (e) a class action is superior to other methods for an efficient adjudication 

of this controversy, and (f) counsel of record for the class representatives are qualified to serve as 

counsel for the Plaintiffs in their individual and their representative capacities and for the Settlement 

Class.

9. By this Judgment, the Plaintiffs and each of the Settlement Class Members shall be 

deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully and finally released Defendants, 

their parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, related business entities, and all of their employees, 

officers, agents, attorneys, stockholders, successors and assigns, and any individual or entity which 

could be jointly liable with Defendants (the "Released Parties"), from any and all claims, known and 

unknown, for unpaid overtime wages, meal periods, rest periods, and penalties and interest based on 

violations of overtime wage, meal and rest break obligations allegedly owed by Defendants for work 

performed as a Client Financial Analysts from October 29, 1999 through March 31, 2003, under 

California or other state law or federal statute, ordinance, regulation, common law, or other source of 

law, whether or not such claims are in the nature of back pay, damages, interest, penalties, attorneys' 

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

fees or injunctive relief, whether in contract, tort, in equity, or pursuant to a statutory remedy, 

including, but not limited to: (1) any wage, hour or related record keeping claims arising under the 

California Labor Code, the applicable wage orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission, 

and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) any claims for unfair business practices 

(including unlawful, deceptive, or unfair business practices prohibited by the California Business and 

Professions Code § 17200 et seq.) arising out of alleged violations of wage, hour and related record 

keeping provisions of the California Labor Code, the applicable wage orders of the California 

Industrial Welfare Commission, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (3) any 

other claims relating to overtime wages, meal periods, break periods and penalties based on 

allegations that Citibank did not comply with all federal and state wage and hour laws, regulations and 

ordinances, and/or common law, including claims that Citibank improperly classified employees as 

exempt, failed to provide them with meal or rest periods or failed to keep proper records related to 

overtime compensation and meal and rest periods (collectively the “Settlement Class Members’ 

Released Claims”). 

10. With respect to Settlement Class Members' Released Claims (for work performed as a 

Client Financial Analyst and arising between October 29, 1999 through March 31, 2003) only, and no 

other claims, the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by 

operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived and relinquished, to the fullest extent 

permitted by law, the provisions, rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code to 

the extent it is applicable, or any other similar provision under federal, state or local law to the extent 

any such provision is applicable. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiffs and/or the Settlement Class 

Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those which they now know or 

believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Settlement Class Members' Released 

Claims, Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member shall be deemed to have and by operation of the 

Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released any and all of Settlement Class 

Members' Released Claims. This is true whether Settlement Class Members' Released Claims are 

known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not concealed 

or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed upon any theory of California or federal law or 

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct 

which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law, or rule, without 

regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts. 

11. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys fully and finally release the Released Parties, following payment 

of the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and costs pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement and the 

recommendations and/or orders of the Special Masters regarding attorneys’ fees and costs as approved 

or modified, from any claims they have related to issuance of such payments. 

12. Neither the Stipulated Settlement nor any act performed or document executed 

pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulated Settlement shall be considered an admission of liability 

or wrongdoing by Defendants. No document prepared in connection with the Stipulated Settlement 

may be admitted in any proceeding as an admission by Plaintiffs, or any person within the Settlement 

Class. However, any and all provisions of this Agreement may be admitted in evidence and otherwise 

used in any and all proceedings to enforce any or all terms of the Stipulated Settlement, or in defense 

of any claims released or barred by the Stipulated Settlement. 

13. The Court has reviewed the recommendations and/or orders of the Special Masters 

regarding attorneys’ fees, costs and class representative enhancements, Special Master compensation, 

and Claims Administrator’s compensation. Such recommendations and/or orders are approved. The 

Court finds that the attorneys’ fees, costs and class representative enhancements, Special Master 

compensation, and Claims Administrator’s compensation are fair and reasonable as approved. 

Defendants are directed to make such payments as are required under the Stipulated Settlement, and 

the Claims Administrator is directed to make such distributions as are required under the Stipulated 

Settlement. 

14. The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over this action solely for 

purposes of (i) enforcing the Parties’ Stipulated Settlement, (ii) addressing settlement administration 

matters, and (iii) addressing such post-Class Final Judgment matters as may be appropriate under 

court rules or applicable law. 

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER CASE NO. C 03-04748 MMC

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

15. This document shall constitute a judgment (and separate document constituting said 

judgment) for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 58. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2006 ________________________________________ 

 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 6