Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05428/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05428-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Adams
Plaintiff
Dontrell Bunter
Plaintiff
Robert Eggert
Plaintiff
Michael Ferris
Plaintiff
Ed Hall
Plaintiff
Inter-Con Security Services, Inc.
Defendant
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Dujuan Nickson
Plaintiff
Rohit Singh
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 

 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROY ADAMS, ROBERT EGGERT, 

MICHAEL FERRIS, ED HALL, ROHIT 

SINGH, DUJUAN NICKSON, and 

DONTRELL BUNTER, on behalf of 

themselves and a class of those similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, 

INC., d/b/a INTER-CON SECURITY 

SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. C-06-5428 MHP 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER (1) 

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 

PROPOSED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE 

ACTION SETTLEMENT; 

(2) PROVISIONALLY CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION; (3) DIRECTING 

DISSEMINATION OF NOTICE AND 

CLAIM FORM TO THE CLASS; AND 

(4) SETTING SCHEDULE FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL PROCESS 

Date: October 29, 2007 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Courtroom: 15 

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 12
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 - 

AMENDED PROPOSEDORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order (1) Granting Preliminary Approval to 

Proposed Class and Collective Action Settlement; (2) Provisionally Certifying Settlement Classes 

and Collective Action; (3) Directing Dissemination of Notice and Claim Form to the Class; and 

(4) Setting a Schedule for Final Approval (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”), and the Joint 

Stipulation of Class Settlement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant; Settlement Agreement and 

Release (“Settlement Agreement”) (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), along with the files and records 

of this case, the Court now FINDS, CONCLUDES, and ORDERS as follows: 

I. CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 

 For settlement purposes, the Parties have proposed conditional certification of the 

following settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (the “Rule 23 Classes”): 

The California Class: All persons who work or worked for defendant 

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. (“Inter-Con”) as a Security Officer in 

California from September 5, 2002 to the date of this Order; 

 

The Illinois Class: All persons who work or worked for Inter-Con as a 

Security Officer in Illinois from January 29, 2004 to the date of this Order; 

and 

The Maryland Class: All persons who work or worked for Inter-Con as a 

Security Officer in Maryland from January 29, 2004 to the date of this 

Order. 

 These Rule 23 Classes allege claims under the wage and hour laws of their respective 

states based on defendant Inter-Con’s policies and practices. Specifically, the Rule 23 Classes 

allege that Inter-Con required class members to attend unpaid, pre-shift security briefings and 

unpaid orientation sessions, and failed to pay interest on Security Officers’ uniform deposits upon 

termination of employment. 

 The Court hereby FINDS and CONCLUDES that the Rule 23 Classes satisfy all of the 

requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Each class is sufficiently 

numerous (over 100 persons) that joinder is impracticable. The members of the Rule 23 Classes 

share common issues of fact and law regarding (1) whether defendant has or had a policy and/or 

practice of requiring class members to attend unpaid, pre-shift security briefings and, if so, 

whether such policy or practice violates the given state’s wage and hour laws; (2) whether 

defendant has or had a policy and/or practice of requiring class members to attend unpaid 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 12
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 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

orientation sessions, and, if so, whether such policy or practice violates the given state’s wage and 

hour laws; and (3) whether defendant has or had a policy and/or practice of failing to return 

uniform deposits with interest upon termination of employment, and, if so, whether such policy or 

practice violates the given state’s wage and hour laws. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical 

of those of the classes they represent, since they arise out of the same policies and practices and 

course of conduct complained of by all class members. The named Plaintiffs are adequate 

representatives of the classes they represent, since their interests are co-extensive with those of 

class members, and they have retained experienced counsel to represent them. Questions of law 

or fact common to the classes predominate over individualized issues, and a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

Because certification of the Rule 23 Classes is proposed in the context of a settlement, the Court 

need not inquire whether the case, if tried as a class action, would present intractable management 

problems. Accordingly, the Court hereby CERTIFIES the Rule 23 Classes under Rule 23(a) and 

Rule 23(b)(3). 

 For settlement purposes, the Parties have also proposed conditional certification of the 

following nationwide collective action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) (the “Nationwide FLSA Collective Action”): 

All persons who work or worked for Inter-Con as a Security Officer 

anywhere in the United States from September 5, 2003 to the date of this 

Order, who filed a consent to join form pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) 

prior to the expiration of the period set forth by this Court in its April 11, 

2007 Hoffmann-La Roche Order, or who submit a consent to join form, 

including the consent to join in the Claim Form, by the date set forth in 

this Order, excluding Security Officers covered by the United States State 

Department (“UPSP”) contract. 

 On April 11, 2007, the Court granted conditional certification of nationwide collective 

action under the FLSA based on its determination that all potential collective action members are 

similarly situated, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §216(b). Adams v. Inter-Con Security Sys., 

Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In their Preliminary Approval Motion and in the proposed 

settlement agreement, Plaintiffs seek only (1) to extend the tolling period applicable to all 

Plaintiffs who opt-in to the collective action to September 5, 2006, the date on which the original 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 3 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

complaint was filed in this action; and (2) to re-open the period for Class Members to opt-in to 

the Nationwide FLSA Collective Action until the deadline to submit Claim Forms. 

 The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that the proposed Nationwide FLSA Collective 

Action fulfills the requirements for a collective action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). The Court finds 

no reason to revisit its previous determination that all potential FLSA collective action members 

nationwide are similarly situated, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §216(b). The Court agrees 

that extending a uniform tolling period for all collective action members to September 5, 2006, is 

reasonable and appropriate in light of the fact that many collective action members opted in to the 

FLSA claim soon after the case was filed and are therefore entitled to tolling from the date the 

complaint was filed, or relatively soon thereafter. Finally, the Court agrees that re-opening the 

period for opting in to the FLSA claim is appropriate, in order to provide potential collective 

action members an opportunity to participate in the proposed settlement. Accordingly, the Court 

CERTIFIES the Nationwide FLSA Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). Potential 

collective action members may opt-in to the Nationwide FLSA Collective Action until the 

postmark deadline for submitting Claim Forms, discussed below. 

II. APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS COUNSEL 

 The Court finds that Class Representatives Roy Adams, Robert Eggert, Michael Ferris, Ed 

Hall, and Rojit Singh have claims typical of absent class members belonging to the California 

Class and are adequate representatives of those class members. The Court finds that Class 

Representative DuJuan Nickson has claims typical of absent class members belonging to the 

Illinois Class and is an adequate representative of those class members. The Court finds that 

Class Representative Dontrell Bunter has claims typical of absent class members belonging to the 

Maryland Class and is an adequate representative of those class members. The Court further 

finds that all named Plaintiffs have claims typical of current and potential members of the 

Nationwide FLSA Collective Action and are adequate representatives of those individuals. The 

Court appoints the named Plaintiffs to serve as Class Representatives of their respective Rule 23 

Class and, collectively, of the Nationwide FLSA Collective Action. 

 The Court finds that Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Andrus Liberty & 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 4 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

Anderson LLP; Altshuler Berzon LLP; and McTague & Palay, Inc. have, separately and 

collectively, extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting wage and hour class and collective 

action cases. The Court appoints these firms as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes and the 

Nationwide FLSA Collective Action. 

III. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

 The Court has reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the monetary 

and injunctive relief provisions, the plan of allocation and the release of claims, and the Plaintiffs’ 

description of the settlement in the Motion papers. The Court has also read and considered the 

two declarations of James M. Finberg (one of which was filed under seal) in support of 

preliminary approval. Based on review of those papers, and the Court’s familiarity with this case, 

the Court concludes that the proposed settlement is the result of extensive, arms’-length 

negotiations between the Parties after Class Counsel had investigated the claims and become 

familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ case. The assistance of an experienced 

mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive. Based on all of 

these factors, the Court concludes that the proposed settlement has no obvious defects and is 

within the range of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the Class is appropriate. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

 1. The proposed settlement is hereby PRELIMINARILY APPROVED. Final 

approval is subject to the hearing of any objections of members of the settlement classes to the 

proposed settlement. 

 2. Pending the determination of the fairness of the proposed settlement, all further 

litigation of this action is hereby STAYED. 

IV. APPROVAL OF THE FORM AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTING NOTICE AND 

CLAIM FORM

The Parties have also submitted for this Court’s approval a proposed Notice of (1) 

Proposed Class Action Settlement, and (2) Final Settlement Approval Hearing (“Notice”) and a 

proposed Claim Form, which the Court has carefully reviewed. The Court FINDS and 

CONCLUDES as follows: 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 5 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 5 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

The proposed Notice is the best notice practical under the circumstances and allows Class 

Members a full and fair opportunity to consider the proposed Settlement. The proposed plan for 

distributing the Notice and Claim Form, which are attached as exhibits to the Settlement 

Agreement, likewise is a reasonable method calculated to reach all individuals who would be 

bound by the settlement. Under this plan, the Claims Administrator will distribute the Notice and 

Claim Form to all members of the Rule 23 Classes and all current and potential members of the 

Nationwide FLSA Collective Action (collectively, “Class Members”) by First Class United States 

Mail to their last known addresses. There is no additional method of distribution that would be 

reasonably likely to notify Class Members who may not receive notice pursuant to the proposed 

distribution plan. 

The Notice fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably informs Class Members of: 

(1) appropriate information about the nature of this litigation, the settlement classes, the identity 

of Class Counsel, and the essential terms of the settlement, including the monetary and injunctive 

relief and the plan of allocation; (2) appropriate information about Class Counsel’s forthcoming 

application for attorneys’ fees and the proposed service payments to Class Representatives; (3) 

appropriate information about how to participate in the settlement; (4) appropriate information 

about this Court’s procedures for final approval of the settlement, and about class members’ right 

to appear through counsel if they desire; (5) appropriate information about how to challenge or 

opt-out of the settlement, if they wish to do so; and (6) appropriate instructions as to how to 

obtain additional information regarding this litigation and the settlement. 

Similarly, the proposed Claim Form allows eligible claimants a full and fair opportunity to 

submit a claim for proceeds in connection with the settlement. The Claim Form fairly, 

accurately, and reasonably informs potential claimants that failure to complete and submit a 

Claim Form, in the manner and time specified, shall constitute a waiver of any right to obtain any 

share of the settlement fund. Further, the Claim Form clearly sets forth the procedures by which 

claimants can contest defendant’s records of their employment history, which may affect their 

monetary recovery under the settlement. 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 6 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 6 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that the proposed plan for distributing the Notice 

and Claim Form (“Notice Materials”) will provide the best notice practicable, satisfies the notice 

requirements of Rule 23(e), and satisfies all other legal and due process requirements. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

A. The form of the Notice Materials is approved. 

B. The manner of distributing the Notice Materials is approved. 

C. Promptly following the entry of this Order, the Claims 

Administrator shall prepare final versions of the Notice Materials, incorporating into the 

Notice the relevant dates and deadlines set forth in this Order. 

D. Within thirty (30) days following entry of this order, the Defendant 

shall provide the Claims Administrator a database in a format acceptable to the Claims 

Administrator, listing for all Class Members each Class Member’s name, last known 

address, dates of employment in a Covered Position (as that term is defined in the 

Settlement Agreement), and social security number. Defendant shall also provide Class 

Counsel with a list of the Class Members’ names and dates of employment in Covered 

Positions. 

E. Prior to the mailing of the Notice Materials, the Claims 

Administrator will update any new address information for potential class members as 

may be available through the National Change of Address (“NCOA”) database or 

equivalent system. 

F. Within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order, the Claims 

Administrator shall mail, via First Class United States Mail, the Notice Materials to all 

known Class Members at their last known address or at the most recent address that may 

have been obtained through the NCOA. 

G. The Claims Administrator shall take all reasonable steps to obtain 

the correct address of any Class Members for whom the Notice Materials are returned by 

the post office as undeliverable and otherwise to provide the Notice. The Claims 

Administrator will trace all returned undeliverable Notice Materials and re-mail to the 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 7 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 7 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

most recent address available. The Claims Administrator shall promptly notify Class 

Counsel and counsel for Inter-Con of any mail sent to Class Members that is returned as 

undeliverable after the first mailing as well as any such mail returned as undeliverable 

after any subsequent mailing(s). 

H. No later than fourteen (14) days prior to the expiration of the time 

to submit claims, the Claims Administrator shall mail a reminder card to all Class 

Members who have not submitted claims. 

I. In the event a Claim Form is submitted timely but is deficient in 

one or more aspects, the Claims Administrator shall return the Claim Form to the 

claimant within ten (10) business days of receipt with a letter explaining the deficiencies 

and stating that the claimant shall have ten (10) business days from the date of the 

deficiency notice to correct the deficiencies and resubmit the Claim Form. If necessary, 

claimants will be provided a second deficiency notice to correct any deficiencies 

concerning resubmitted Claim Forms, which will be governed by the same timeliness 

requirements as the first deficiency notice. 

J. Class Counsel shall provide the Court, at least five (5) days prior to 

the fairness hearing, a declaration from the Claims Administrator of due diligence and 

proof of mailing with regard to the mailing of the Notice. 

K. The Claims Administrator shall take all other actions in 

furtherance of claims administration as are specified in the Settlement Agreement. 

V. PROCEDURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT

A. Fairness Hearing

 The Court hereby schedules a hearing to determine whether to grant final certification of 

the Rule 23 Classes and the Nationwide FLSA Collective Action, and final approval of the 

Settlement Agreement (including the monetary relief, proposed plan of allocation, injunctive 

relief, payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and service payments to the Class Representatives) 

(the “Fairness Hearing”) for February 25, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 8 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 8 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

B. Deadline to Request Exclusion from the Settlement

 Class Members may exclude themselves from, or opt-out of, the settlement. Any request 

for exclusion must be in the form of a written “opt-out” statement sent to the Claims 

Administrator. A person wishing to opt-out must sign a statement that includes the dates and 

locations where he or she worked for Inter-Con in a Covered Position and the following language: 

 

 I understand that I am requesting to be excluded from the class monetary 

Settlement and that I will receive no money from the Settlement Fund created by 

the Settlement. I understand that if I am excluded from the class, I may bring a 

separate legal action seeking damages, but might recover nothing or less than 

what I would have recovered if I filed a claim under the class monetary provisions 

in this case. 

 To be effective, any opt-out statement must be sent to the Claims Administrator via First 

Class United States Mail, facsimile, or the equivalent, postmarked no later than forty-five (45) 

days after the Claims Administrator first mails the Notice to Class Members. Only those Class 

Members who request exclusion in the time and manner set forth herein shall be excluded from 

the settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (c)(2), the terms and 

provisions of the settlement shall have no binding effect on any person who makes a timely 

request for exclusion in the manner required by this Order. 

 The Claims Administrator shall date stamp the original of any opt-out statement 

and serve copies on both Class Counsel and counsel for Inter-Con via facsimile and 

overnight delivery within five (5) business days of receipt of such statements. Class 

Counsel shall file copies of all timely requests for exclusion, not timely rescinded, with 

the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. 

 Class Members shall be permitted to withdraw or rescind their opt-out statements 

by submitting a “rescission of opt-out” statement to the Claims Administrator. The 

rescission of opt-out statement shall include the following language: 

 

I previously submitted an opt-out statement seeking exclusion from the 

settlement. I have reconsidered and wish to withdraw my opt-out statement. I 

understand that by rescinding my opt-out I may be eligible to receive an award 

from the claims settlement fund and may not bring a separate legal action against 

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. with respect to the Released Claims. 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 9 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 9 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

 A Class Member wishing to submit such a rescission statement shall sign and date 

the statement and cause it to be delivered to the Claims Administrator no later than sixty 

(60) days after the Claims Administrator first mails the Notice. 

 The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the original of any 

rescission of opt-out statement and serve copies on Class Counsel and counsel for InterCon via facsimile and overnight delivery within five (5) business days of receipt of such 

statements. Class Counsel shall file copies of all timely rescissions of opt-out statements 

with the Court no later than two (2) business days prior to the date of the Fairness 

Hearing. 

C. Defendant’s Right to Rescind Agreement

 If the number of individuals who opt-out of the settlement in the manner provided 

in this Order exceeds ten percent (10%) of all Class Members, Inter-Con may, at its 

option, rescind this settlement. Inter-Con must notify Class Counsel of a decision to 

withdraw in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days after the deadline for submitting 

requests for exclusions. If Inter-Con exercises this option, all of Inter-Con’s obligations 

under the Settlement Agreement shall cease to be of any force and effect, and the 

Settlement Agreement and any order entered in connection therewith shall be vacated, 

rescinded, canceled, and annulled, and the parties shall return to the status quo in the 

Civil Action as if the parties had not entered into the Settlement Agreement. In addition, 

in such event, the Settlement Agreement and all negotiations, Court orders, and 

proceedings related thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of any and all parties 

thereto, and evidence relating to the Settlement Agreement and all negotiations shall not 

be admissible or discoverable in the Civil Action or otherwise. 

D. Deadline for Filing Objections to Settlement 

 Any Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness or 

adequacy of the Settlement Agreement or the settlement must do so in writing. Class 

Members who have timely objected to the settlement in writing may also appear at the 

Fairness Hearing. To be considered, any objection to the final approval of the Settlement 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 10 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 10 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

Agreement must state the basis for the objection and be mailed to the Clerk of the Court, 

Class Counsel, and Counsel for Inter-Con, at the addresses provided in the Notice, via 

First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, postmarked no later than forty-five (45) 

days after the date that Notice is first mailed by the Claims Administrator. Any Class 

Member who does not timely file and serve such a written objection shall not be 

permitted to raise such objection, except for good cause shown, and any Class Member 

who fails to object in the manner prescribed herein shall be deemed to have waived, and 

shall be foreclosed from raising, any such objection. 

 If objections are filed, Class Counsel or counsel for Inter-Con may engage in 

discovery concerning the filed objections prior to the Fairness Hearing. 

 E. Deadline for Submitting Claims Forms

 A Class Member who does not opt-out will be eligible to receive his or her 

proportionate share of the settlement fund. To receive this share, such a Class Member 

must properly and timely complete a Claim Form in accordance with the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. To be effective, the Claim Form must be sent to the Claims 

Administrator at the address provided in the Notice postmarked no later than sixty (60) 

days after the initial mailing of the Notice to Class Members. Failure to postmark a 

completed Claim Form by the deadline shall bar the Class Member from receiving any 

monetary award pursuant to the proposed settlement. Class Members who do not file 

timely and valid Claim Forms shall nonetheless be bound by the judgment and release in 

this action as set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement, unless that Class Member 

timely opts out of the settlement. 

 It shall be the sole responsibility of each Class Member who seeks a monetary 

award to notify the Claims Administrator if the Class Member changes his or her address. 

Failure of a Class Member to keep the Claims Administrator apprised of his or her 

address may result in the claim being denied or forfeited. 

F. Deadline for Submitting Motion Seeking Final Approval

 No later than thirty-five (35) days before the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs shall file 

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 11 of 12
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 

 

 

 - 11 - 

AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. On or before one week before the 

Fairness Hearing, the Parties may file with the Court a reply brief responding to any filed 

objections. 

G. Deadline for Petition for Attorneys’ Fees

 Class Counsel shall file with this Court their petition for an award of attorneys’ 

fees and reimbursement of expenses no later than thirty-five (35) days before the Fairness 

Hearing. Class Counsel may file a reply to any opposition memorandum filed by any 

objector no later than one week before the Fairness Hearing. 

H. Deadline for Petition for Approval of Service Payments

 Class Counsel shall file with this Court their petition for an award of service 

payments to the Class Representatives no later than thirty-five (35) days before the 

Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel may file a reply to any opposition memorandum filed 

by an objector no later than one week before the Fairness Hearing. 

VI. PLAINTIFFS’ AND CLASS MEMBERS’ RELEASE 

If, at the Fairness Hearing, this Court grants final approval to the settlement, 

named Plaintiffs and each individual member of the Rule 23 Classes or Nationwide 

FLSA Collective Action who does not timely opt-out will release claims, as set forth in 

Settlement Agreement and Claim Form, by operation of this Court’s entry of the 

Judgment and Final Approval, regardless of whether he or she submits a Claim Form or 

receives any share of the settlement fund. 

VII. APPOINTMENT OF CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

 CPT Group, Inc. is hereby appointed Claims Administrator to carry out the duties 

set forth in this Order and the Settlement Agreement. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: __________________ ______________________________ 

 The Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 

 United States District Judge 

 

October 29, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 153 Filed 10/30/07 Page 12 of 12