Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02846/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02846-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leilani Hammock
Plaintiff
Oracle Corporation
Defendant
Leon Turo
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA [PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT

TODD M. SCHNEIDER (SB# 158253)

TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com

W.H. “HANK” WILLSON, IV (SB# 233321) 

WWillson@schneiderwallace.com 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

TTY: (415) 421-1665 

CHRISTINA DJERNAES (SB# 177522) 

christina@djernaeslaw.com 

LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTINA DJERNAES 

1215 De La Vina Street, Suite K 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Telephone: (805) 685-8189 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

LEON TURO, LEILANI HAMMOCK 

AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORACLE CORPORATION 

listed on page 2 of caption 

O

N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON TURO AND LEILANI 

HAMMOCK, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ORACLE CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C-06-2846 SBA 

CLASS ACTION

AMENDED PROVISIONAL ORDER: 

CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, 

APPROVING COLLECTIVE ACTION, 

AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND 

NOTICES TO SETTLEMENT 

MEMBERS 

The Hon. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA [PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 088785)

nancyabell@paulhastings.com 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

(SB# 235429) 

elizabethbrown@paulhastings.com 

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 

515 South Flower Street 

Twenty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

Telephone: (213) 683-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORACLE CORPORATION

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

1

The parties in this action for alleged violations of California and federal overtime 

and other wage-hour laws have submitted a joint motion seeking provisional approval of 

their Revised Joint Stipulation of Class and Collective Action Settlement Between 

Plaintiffs and Defendant; Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), 

provisional certification of the settlement classes, and provisional approval of a collective 

action, as well as approval of the proposed notices to those eligible to share in the 

settlement. The Court has reviewed the motion, the proposed notices to those eligible for 

Settlement Awards, all other settlement documents, and the pleadings in the case as a 

whole, and has made the following FINDINGS: 

1. Plaintiffs filed this action April 26, 2006, against Oracle Corporation, 

seeking to represent current and former contracts administration and license migrations 

employees of Oracle in the United States. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Oracle 

misclassified certain of its contracts administration and license migrations employees as 

exempt from the overtime requirements of California and federal law, and thus failed to 

pay them overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs also alleged 

that Oracle failed to ensure that its contracts administration and license migrations 

employees in California took their lawfully mandated meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs 

asserted causes of action, on behalf of themselves and the class, for violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); the California Labor Code; and California’s Unfair 

Business Practices Act, California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq. 

(“UCL”). Plaintiffs sought payment of unpaid wages, civil penalties, liquidated 

damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

2. Oracle maintains that its contracts administration and license migrations 

employees were properly considered exempt from the overtime laws, and, as a result, 

Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for unpaid overtime. Oracle further maintains that some of 

its contracts administration and license migrations employees worked no overtime. In 

addition, Oracle maintains that its contracts administration and license migrations 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 3 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

2

employees in California (and throughout the United States) were provided with meal and 

rest periods, were timely paid all wages and other payments due and/or were and are not 

eligible for any penalties. At this time all current United States employees of Oracle 

Corporation or Oracle USA, Inc. who are eligible for Settlement Awards are classified 

and paid as non-exempt employees. 

3. The parties’ settlement was reached after formal discovery and arms’-length 

negotiations. The parties and counsel believe that this Settlement Agreement provides a 

fair and reasonable settlement for the Settlement Members, with respect to their claims 

for allegedly unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and other penalties 

due to Oracle’s classification policy and wage-hour practices. 

4. In discovery, Plaintiffs reviewed hundreds of pages worth of relevant 

documents provided by Oracle, and complete pay and time records (to the extent time 

records were actually kept) for the class of employees whom Plaintiffs represent with 

respect to this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs took the deposition of Oracle’s corporate 

designee regarding the allegations in the Complaint, and Oracle deposed both of the 

named Plaintiffs. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are based on a thorough 

evaluation of this evidence and the underlying case law. 

5. On March 1, 2007, the parties conducted a mediation of Plaintiffs’ class 

action claims with Lynn Matityahu Frank, a respected and experienced mediator. As a 

result of the parties’ work during and following this mediation, the parties have entered 

into a class-wide settlement. The parties have since spent considerable time drafting a 

class-action settlement agreement that ensures that Settlement Members are (1) provided 

with notice of the Settlement Agreement and its terms; (2) will not lose their right to sue 

if they do not have actual notice of this Settlement Agreement; and (3) will not lose their 

right to sue under the FLSA even after receiving notice, unless they affirmatively opt in 

to this settlement. The agreement provides, among other things: 

 (1) only those Settlement Members who affirmatively opt in to the 

Settlement Agreement will be subject to the release of FLSA claims; 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 4 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

3

 (2) California state law claims of employees who are working for an 

Oracle entity at the time notice is given and who work or worked for Oracle (or an Oracle 

entity) in California will be released only if they receive workplace notice of the 

settlement and do not opt out; 

 (3) California state law claims of those who are former employees of 

Oracle (or an Oracle entity) and who worked in California will be released if they do not 

opt out, unless the Postal Service returns the final class action notice sent as 

undeliverable; 

 (4) if the Claims Administrator does not agree with a Settlement 

Member’s assertion regarding the weeks worked in each settlement subclass, the Claims 

Administrator will notify the Settlement Member, who then shall have twenty-one (21) 

calendar days from the date of the postmark on that letter from the Claims Administrator 

to opt out of the settlement; 

 (5) several mechanisms ensure that Settlement Members receive notice 

of this Settlement, including workplace notice by mail and email, pre-mailing database 

searches, internet notice, and telephone calls to Settlement Members; and 

 (6) the time to file objections and/or to opt out of the settlement is 65 

days after the mailing of the Notice and Claim Form. 

6. Under the terms of the settlement, Oracle will deposit $1,187,500 into a 

qualified settlement fund. The fund will be administered by an independent and highly 

experienced third-party Claims Administrator on a claims-made basis with unclaimed 

monies reverting to Oracle. This amount is designed to cover an anticipated payment to 

Class Counsel of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total value of the claims made 

under the settlement, plus $20,000 for costs. It also includes an estimated amount of 

$27,000 or less to the third-party Settlement Administrator for the costs of administering 

the notice and claims proceedings. 

7. The Settlement Agreement splits the class into two classes under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23 and a collective under 28 U.S.C. §216(b): 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 5 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

4

(a) California Overtime Class: All individuals who were employed in one 

of the job codes and job titles below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. 

in the State of California between April 26, 2002 and the date(s) that 

Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. made those individuals (or the 

individuals in their job code(s)) eligible for overtime compensation, 

for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged unpaid overtime and 

waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, and interest 

on those amounts alleged in the Complaint; 

(b) California Penalties Class: All individuals who are currently 

employed, or formerly have been employed, in one of the job codes 

and job titles below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. in the State of 

California between April 26, 2002 and the date of entry of 

preliminary approval, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged 

denied meal and rest periods, record-keeping and other wage-hour 

penalties and interest on those amounts alleged in the Complaint; and 

(c) FLSA Collective: All individuals who were employed in any of the 

job codes and job titles below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. in the 

United States between April 26, 2003 and the date(s) that Defendant 

or Oracle USA, Inc. made those individuals (or the individuals in their 

job code(s)) eligible for overtime compensation, for the purposes of 

Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, 

and interest alleged in the Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act. 

8. Under the terms of the Settlement, the California Overtime Class and the 

FLSA Collective will receive similar settlement shares per week worked. The California 

Overtime Class will receive slightly more than the FLSA Collective to account for the 

fact that California law requires the payment of overtime compensation for work in 

excess of eight hours in a day and affords waiting time penalties for unpaid wages, while 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 6 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

5

the FLSA does not. The California Penalties Class will receive a much smaller share per 

week worked, to reflect the relative likelihood of recovery on those claims and the lower 

amounts made available by statute for them. Within the Classes and Collective, each 

Settlement Member’s settlement amount will vary proportionately based on the number 

of weeks he or she worked within the relevant time period. If a Settlement Member is a 

member of more than one Class or a Class and a Collective, he or she will get his or her 

proportionate share for the amount of time he or she spent in each group. The average 

payout per Settlement Member will be approximately $2,902 for the members of the 

California Overtime Class, approximately $2,186 for the FLSA Collective, and 

approximately $472 for the California Penalties Class, with some Settlement Members in 

more than one group. 

9. Using computerized address searches based on employment records, calls to 

the telephone numbers of Settlement Members, and workplace and internet notice, the 

Claims Administrator, Class Counsel and Oracle will make all reasonable efforts, as 

specified in the Settlement Agreement, to best ensure that each Settlement Member 

receives full and adequate notice of the settlement, including: the gross and net settlement 

amount, the requirement that the Settlement Member timely submit a claim form in order 

to participate in the settlement, an opportunity to submit objections to the settlement and 

appear at the final fairness hearing, and an opportunity to opt out of the settlement 

altogether. Upon final approval, the Claims Administrator will ensure distribution of the 

settlement funds to the class. 

10. Defendant will pay to the California Labor and Workforce Development 

Agency the sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) under the Private Attorneys 

General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Sections 2698-2699 (“PAGA”). This 

payment will not change the release in any way, nor will it result in any increased 

payments to the Representative Plaintiffs. Defendant will make this payment within 20 

days after the Effective Date of the settlement, as defined in Paragraph 2.k. of the 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 7 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

6

Settlement Agreement, but the funds for it will not be paid from the Funds Available for 

Settlement. 

11. Under the Settlement Agreement, FLSA claims are released only for those 

who opt in. See Settlement Agreement at ¶2.s and t. The California workers’ Californialaw claims are released on an opt-out basis, but only if the individual is a current 

employee who received workplace notice or a former employee whose last mailed notice 

was not returned as undeliverable by the Postal Service. See Settlement Agreement at 

¶¶2.s. and t and 13. 

12. The Settlement Agreement does not purport to release any claims of 

Settlement Members other than those pled in the operative Complaint. In addition, any 

issues of personal jurisdiction over non-California employees is addressed by the fact that 

there is no release of FLSA claims except by those who opt in by filing a valid Claim 

Form, and thus accede to this Court’s jurisdiction, in order to release their claims. See

Settlement Agreement at ¶¶2.s. and t and 13. In addition, the Settlement Agreement 

provides that even after all of the procedures are undertaken to ensure that the Notice is 

sent to an updated address, Settlement Members who are not employed by an Oracle 

entity at the time notice is given and whose Notices are returned as undeliverable will not 

release their claims against Defendant. See Settlement Agreement at ¶19.h. 

13. The Settlement Agreement provides that if a Settlement Member challenges 

his number of weeks worked and is not satisfied with the result of the review by the 

Claims Administrator, he or she may choose to opt out of the settlement. See Settlement 

Agreement at ¶30.f. 

14. The Settlement Agreement proposes an award of Class Counsel fees in the 

amount of 25% of the total value of the claims actually made under the settlement. See

Settlement Agreement at ¶29.b. This ties Class Counsel’s fee to the actual participation 

in the settlement, but also reflects the Ninth Circuit’s 25% “benchmark” for fee awards in 

common-fund cases. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 

2002); Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 8 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

7

1990); Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989); In re 

Pacific Enterprises Security Litigation, 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Activision 

Securities Litigation, 723 F. Supp. 1373, 1375 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Under this fee structure, 

each Settlement Member who receives an award effectively pays 25% of his or her award 

to Class Counsel as compensation for the work Class Counsel put into this case, as well 

as for the fact that without Class Counsel’s efforts, the Settlement Members would not 

receive any award at all. This also represents a considerable discount from the standard 

one-third fee commonly taken in contingency-fee cases. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051. 

15. Service or incentive payments to named plaintiffs are frequently awarded to 

recognize their time and efforts, and the risks they undertake on behalf of the Settlement 

Members. Courts routinely award service payments, which are intended to advance 

public policy by encouraging individuals to come forward and perform their civic duty in 

protecting the rights of the class, as well as to compensate class representatives for their 

time, effort and inconvenience. “Courts routinely approve incentive awards to 

compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred 

during the course of the class action litigation.” Ingram v. The Coca-Cola Co., 200 

F.R.D. 685, 694 (N.D. Ga. 2001), quoting In Re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 

175 F.R.D. 270, 272 (S.D. Ohio 1997); see also Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 

901 F. Supp. 294, 300 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (approving $50,000 participation award for 

representative Plaintiff). In this action, the Representative Plaintiffs took steps to 

advance the interests of the class in this litigation. Both searched their files and produced 

all of the documents they had relating to their employment at Oracle. Both traveled from 

their homes to sit for day-long depositions by Oracle’s attorneys. As a result of their 

efforts, the Settlement Members will benefit from substantial financial recoveries. In 

addition, the service payments to the Representative Plaintiffs not only reward them for 

their service and efforts on behalf of the Class, but also because they are giving a general 

release of claims that is far broader than the release given by the other Settlement 

Members. The time and effort payment of $7,500 to each is reasonable in light of the 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 9 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

8

efforts they made and risks they took in bringing and prosecuting this action to obtain the 

Funds Available for Settlement totaling $1,187,500. 

16. The Settlement Agreement provides notice to Settlement Members who are 

currently employed by Oracle at their workplace, by emailing the Notice to their work 

email addresses and mailing the Notice to Settlement Members at their work addresses. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶19. In addition, the Notice will be posted on Class Counsel’s 

website until the Claims Administrator provides the parties and the Court with a final 

accounting of the mailing and payment of Settlement Awards. Id. The Settlement 

Agreement also provides for extensive methods of ensuring that the Notice is mailed to 

the correct address of Settlement Members who are no longer employed by Oracle. The 

Settlement Agreement provides that the Claims Administrator will do all of the following 

before mailing the Notice and Claim Form: (1) receive the last-known addresses, 

telephone numbers, and social security numbers of the Settlement Members; (2) run this 

class list through the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database 

(“NCOA”). The NCOA database documents change of address requests filed with the 

post office and can cover up to a four-year period; (3) perform address searches using 

public and proprietary electronic resources which collect their data from various sources 

such as utility records, property tax records, motor vehicle registration records (where 

allowed) and credit bureaus; and (4) call last-known telephone numbers (and telephone 

numbers updated through public and proprietary databases) to contact Settlement 

Members to obtain their current addresses. Id. These processes will be repeated for 

those Settlement Members for whom the Notice is returned as undelivered. Id. 

17. The proposed Notice provides information on the meaning and nature of the 

proposed Settlement Agreement, the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, 

the monetary and other relief that the Settlement Agreement will provide Settlement 

Members (including a clear explanation of the method of allocating and paying 

settlement awards to claiming Settlement Members in the Classes and Collective, and of 

the claims process), the procedures and deadlines for making a claim to a settlement 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 10 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

9

award, opting out of the settlement or submitting objections, the consequences of taking 

or foregoing the various options available to Settlement Members, and the date, time and 

place of the final settlement approval hearing. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(h), the proposed Notice sets forth the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs 

sought by Plaintiffs, as well as an explanation of the procedure by which Plaintiffs’ 

counsel will apply for them. In addition, the notice explains that Settlement Members 

have the opportunity to object to, and request a copy from Plaintiffs’ counsel of, the 

Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs. The Notice also fulfills the requirement of 

neutrality in class notices. (See 4 NEWBERG § 8.39.) It summarizes the proceedings 

necessary to provide context for the Settlement Agreement and summarizes the terms and 

conditions of the settlement, including an explanation of how the settlement amount will 

be allocated between the named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator, and 

the Settlement Members, in an informative, coherent and easy-to-understand manner, all 

in compliance with the Manual for Complex Litigation’s observation that “the notice 

contain a clear, accurate description of the terms of the settlement.” (MANUAL FOR 

COMPLEX LITIGATION (THIRD) (“MANUAL”) at § 21.312.) The Notice clearly states that 

the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Oracle. It makes clear that 

the final settlement approval decision has yet to be made. Accordingly, the Notice 

complies with the standards of fairness, completeness, and neutrality required of a 

settlement class notice disseminated under authority of the Court. (4 NEWBERG, §§ 8.21 

and 8.39; MANUAL, § 21.311 and 21.312.) 

18. It is well-settled that class certification should be granted if the requirements 

of FRCP 23(a) are satisfied and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. 

Rule 23(a) provides that class certification is appropriate if (1) the class is so numerous 

that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of either law or fact 

common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of 

the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class. See, e.g., Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 11 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

10

97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1996). All of the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met in this 

case for purposes of settlement. See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 

620 (1997). 

19. Satisfaction of the FRCP 23 factors for class actions per se shows that the 

requirements for a showing of the right to proceed as a FLSA collective action. See 

Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 (11th Cir. 1996); Flavel v. Svedala Indus. 

Inc., 875 F.Supp. 550, 553 (E.D.Wis.1994) (“The ‘similarly situated’ requirement, in 

turn, ‘is considerably less stringent than the requirement of [Rule 23(b)(3)] that common 

questions ‘predominate,’ or presumably, the Rule 20(a) requirement that claims ‘arise out 

of the same action or occurrence.’”) 

20. All of the Settlement Members have worked for Oracle and may be readily 

identified through payroll records and other documents in the possession of Oracle. The 

proposed Classes and Collective consist, according to Oracle’s records, of approximately 

345 persons, making the proposed Classes and Collective sufficiently numerous. 

21. Common questions of law and fact predominate. The common issues, 

which predominate in this action, include: (1) whether contracts administration and 

license migrations employees in the Covered Job Codes are properly qualified for any 

one of the various exemptions from the overtime laws; (2) whether contracts 

administration and license migrations employees in the Covered Job Codes are entitled to 

overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked; and (2) whether Oracle was 

willful in its failure to pay overtime compensation to its contracts administration and 

license migrations employees in the Covered Job Codes. 

22. To satisfy the requirement of typicality, “a class representative must be part 

of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class 

members.” General Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982). “Under the 

rule’s permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably 

coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” 

Hanlon, et al. v. Chrysler Corporation, 150 F. 3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs’ 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 12 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

11

claims are sufficiently typical of the common claims presented. Plaintiffs were contracts 

administration and license migrations employees of Oracle in the Covered Job Codes 

who worked overtime but were not paid overtime compensation, and who claim that they 

were denied meal and rest periods from time to time during their employment. 

23. Representation is adequate if (a) the named representative appears able to 

prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel; and (b) the class representative 

is not disqualified by interests antagonistic to the remainder of the class. Lerwill v. 

Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978). There is no conflict 

between Plaintiffs and the Settlement Members in this case; Plaintiffs’ claims are in line 

with the claims of the class. Plaintiffs have and will continue to aggressively and 

competently assert the interests of the Classes and Collective, and Plaintiffs’ counsel is 

skilled and experienced in wage and hour class action litigation. Plaintiffs submit that 

class- and collective-action treatment of these claims is appropriate where, as here, the 

legality of a policy or program as a whole is at issue. 

24. Under Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is appropriate if “the court finds that 

the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other 

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” For the 

reasons discussed above, the Classes and Collective defined above satisfies the 

predominance requirement. Moreover, allowing the Settlement Members the opportunity 

to participate in a settlement that yields an immediate and substantial benefit is highly 

superior to having a multiplicity of individual and duplicative proceedings in this Court 

and in arbitrations across the country. It also is superior to the alternative of leaving 

these important labor rights unredressed due to the difficulty of finding legal 

representation and filing claims on an individualized basis. 

25. The decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to this 

Court’s broad discretion; a court’s decision to approve a class action settlement may be 

reversed only upon a strong showing of “clear abuse of discretion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 13 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

12

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 

1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). 

26. This settlement is presumed by be fair because it was reached through 

arm’s-length negotiations, and sufficient investigation and discovery has taken place to 

allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently, and counsel is experienced in similar 

types of litigation. See, e.g., Neff v. Via Metropolitan Transit Authority, 179 F.R.D. 185, 

208 (W.D. Tex. 1998); In Re Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 1001 (N.D. Ga. 1980), aff’d,

669 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The court encourages parties to resolve legal disputes 

among themselves without judicial intercession, and therefore, their agreement will not 

be disturbed unless after comparing the likely rewards of litigation with the relative 

disadvantages of settlement, the court is convinced that the terms of the settlement are so 

unfair, inadequate and unreasonable that approving it would be an abuse of discretion”). 

27. Preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is appropriate, because it 

within the range of possible final approval, also described as the range of reasonableness. 

See, e.g., In re Traffic Exec. Ass’n, 627 F.2d 631, 633-634 (2d Cir. 1980); see also 4 

ALBA CONTE & HERBERT B. NEWBERG, Newberg on Class Actions §11.25 (4th ed. 2002) 

(“Newberg”). 

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court makes the following ORDERS: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for provisional approval of 

the settlement, provisional certification of settlement classes and provisional approval of 

the collective action is GRANTED; and 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant shall deposit with the Claims Administrator the sum of 

One Million One Hundred Eighty-seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,187,500) as 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 14 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

13

the Funds Available for Settlement as defined in and pursuant to the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement in exchange for a release of claims pursuant to the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 13-14, 19.h.), which sum 

shall be used to pay Settlement Awards on a claims-made basis if the settlement is finally 

approved by the Court. Upon receipt of this sum, the Claims Administrator shall deposit 

the entirety into a qualified settlement fund to which the parties’ counsel mutually agree; 

2. Two classes are provisionally certified and a collective action is 

provisionally approved, pending final approval at the Fairness Hearing: 

 (a) California Overtime Class: All individuals who were 

employed in one of the job codes and job titles below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. 

in the State of California between April 26, 2002 and the date(s) that Defendant or Oracle 

USA, Inc. made those individuals (or the individuals in their job code(s)) eligible for 

overtime compensation, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged unpaid overtime 

and waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, and interest on those 

amounts alleged in the Complaint: 

Covered 

Job Codes 

Covered Job Titles Eligibility Period

70510 Contract Administrator 1, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Contract Analyst, 

Contractor, Senior Contract 

Specialist, VAD Contract 

Specialist and VAD Service 

Analyst (all level 1)

4/26/02 – 9/19/04

70520 Contract Administrator 2, 

sometimes referred to as License 

Migration Analyst, Contract 

Analyst, Contract Specialist, 

Contract Support, Contract 

Manager, Marketing Specialist, 

Senior Contract Analyst, Senior 

Contract Specialist, Senior Field 

4/26/02 – 10/15/05

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 15 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

14

Contract Specialist, Team Lead (all 

level 2)

70530 Contract Administrator 3, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Senior Contract 

Specialist, Contract Manager, 

Licensing Consultant, Senior 

Contract Administrator, 

Subcontract Manager and Team 

Lead Contract Administration (all 

level 3) 

4/26/02 – 12/16/07

 (b) California Penalties Class: All individuals who are currently 

employed, or formerly have been employed, in one of the job codes and job titles 

below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. in the State of California between April 26, 

2002 and the date of entry of preliminary approval, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ 

claims for alleged denied meal and rest periods, record-keeping and other wage-hour 

penalties and interest on those amounts alleged in the Complaint: 

Covered 

Job Codes 

Covered Job Titles Eligibility Period

70510 Contract Administrator 1, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Contract Analyst, 

Contractor, Senior Contract 

Specialist, VAD Contract 

Specialist and VAD Service 

Analyst (all level 1)

4/26/02 – Date of Entry of 

Preliminary Approval 

70520 Contract Administrator 2, 

sometimes referred to as License 

Migration Analyst, Contract 

Analyst, Contract Specialist, 

Contract Support, Contract 

Manager, Marketing Specialist, 

Senior Contract Analyst, Senior 

Contract Specialist, Senior Field 

Contract Specialist, Team Lead 

(all level 2)

4/26/02 – Date of Entry of 

Preliminary Approval 

70530 Contract Administrator 3, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Senior Contract 

Specialist, Contract Manager, 

4/26/02 – Date of Entry 

Preliminary Approval 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 16 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

15

Licensing Consultant, Senior 

Contract Administrator, 

Subcontract Manager and Team 

Lead Contract Administration (all 

level 3) 

 (c) FLSA Collective: All individuals who were employed in any 

of the job codes and job titles below at Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. in the United 

States between April 26, 2003 and the date(s) that Defendant or Oracle USA, Inc. 

made those individuals (or the individuals in their job code(s)) eligible for overtime 

compensation, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged unpaid overtime, 

liquidated damages, and interest alleged in the Complaint under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act: 

Covered 

Job Codes 

Covered Job Titles Eligibility Period

70510 Contract Administrator 1, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Contract Analyst, 

Contractor, Senior Contract 

Specialist, VAD Contract 

Specialist and VAD Service 

Analyst (all level 1) 

4/26/03 – 9/19/04

70520 Contract Administrator 2, 

sometimes referred to as License 

Migration Analyst, Contract 

Analyst, Contract Specialist, 

Contract Support, Contract 

Manager, Marketing Specialist, 

Senior Contract Analyst, Senior 

Contract Specialist, Senior Field 

Contract Specialist, Team Lead 

(all level 2) 

4/26/03 – 10/15/05

70530 Contract Administrator 3, 

sometimes referred to as Contract 

Specialist, Senior Contract 

Specialist, Contract Manager, 

Licensing Consultant, Senior 

Contract Administrator, 

Subcontract Manager and Team 

Lead Contract Administration (all 

4/26/03 – 12/16/07

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 17 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

16

level 3)

If this settlement is not finally approved by the Court, any Court order certifying the 

classes and provisionally approving the collective action shall be vacated without 

prejudice to the right of the parties to seek or oppose certification; 

 3. RG2 Claims Administration, LLC is appointed as Claims 

Administrator, and estimated costs of administration in an amount not to exceed Twenty 

Seven Thousand Dollars ($27,000) may be paid from the Funds Available for Settlement 

as defined in the Settlement Agreement for services performed and costs incurred; 

 4. A time and effort payment of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars 

($7,500) to each of the two Representative Plaintiffs from the total Funds Available for 

Settlement is preliminarily approved; 

 5. Class Counsel shall have fifteen (15) days from the date this Order is 

entered to file their motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 

twenty-five percent (25%) of the total value of the claims made (and not to exceed Two 

Hundred Eighty-one Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($281,375)) and for 

costs of no more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) (including all expert and 

consultant fees and costs) incurred for work already performed in this case and all of the 

work remaining to be performed in this case; 

6. The forms of notice accompanying the Settlement Agreement are 

APPROVED as they are consistent with due process requirements and the best practicable 

form of notice; 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 18 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

17

7. Any Settlement Member (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), 

who wishes to file an objection to this Settlement, must postmark such an objection in 

writing, to the Claims Administrator no later than 65 days from the date of mailing of the 

Notice and Claim Form to the following address: 

Oracle Claims Administrator: 

RG2 Claims Administration LLC 

P.O. Box 59479 

Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 

Settlement Members may send courtesy copies of such objections to Plaintiffs’ counsel 

and Oracle’s counsel, at the following addresses: 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel: 

Todd M. Schneider 

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Christina Djernaes 

1215 De La Vina Street 

Suite K 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Oracle’s Counsel: 

Nancy L. Abell 

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 

515 South Flower St., 25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

 8. Any Settlement Member who wishes to opt out of this Settlement 

must postmark an opt-out notice no later than 65 days from the date of mailing of the 

Notice and Claim Form, to the Claims Administrator at the address set forth in 

paragraph 7 above; and to be valid and effective, an opt-out notice must (i) state the 

opting-out Settlement Member’s name (and, where different, any other name(s) used 

during the Settlement Member’s period of employment with Oracle), address, and 

employee number or social security number; (ii) be signed by the Settlement Member; 

(iii) be timely postmarked to the Claims Administrator; and (iv) contain a statement the 

same as or substantially similar to the following: 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 19 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

18

 I, [NAME], was or am employed by Oracle 

Corporation or Oracle USA, Inc. between [DATES of 

EMPLOYMENT] as a [COVERED JOB CODE and TITLE]. 

I hereby exercise my right to opt out of the Settlement, 

knowing that by doing so I waive any and all rights I may 

have to participate in that Settlement and to be paid any 

portion of the settlement proceeds that I would otherwise be 

eligible to receive under that Settlement. 

 9. No later than 20 days after the Effective Date as defined in Paragraph 

2.k. of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant shall pay to the California Labor and 

Workforce Development Agency the sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) in 

addition to the $1,187,500 Funds Available for Settlement, which Defendant intends to be 

a full resolution of any monies allegedly owed under the California Labor Code Private 

Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Sections 2698-2699. This sum 

shall not be paid from the Funds Available for Settlement, shall not change the class 

release in any way, and shall not result in any increased payment to the Representative 

Plaintiffs; and 

10. The following schedule will govern the class claims in this action: 

Settlement Member List to the Claims Administrator: 5 business days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

Deposit of Settlement Funds with the Claims 

Administrator, who will deposit the funds into 

Qualified Settlement Fund to Which Parties’ Counsel 

Mutually Agree: 

5 business days after entry of

preliminary approval 

Attorneys’ Fees Motion Filed: 15 days after entry of preliminary

approval 

Notice and Claim Form Mailed to Settlement 25 days after entry of preliminary

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 20 of 22
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 

Case No. C-06-2846 SBA 

[PROPOSED] PROVISIONAL ORDER CERTIFYING 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING COLLECTIVE 

ACTION, APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

19

Members: approval 

Last Day to File Objections and Opt-Out Notices: 65 days after mailing of Notice 

and Claim Form 

Last Day to Submit Claim: 100 days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

Last Day for the Parties to Reject Settlement: 105 days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

Last Day to File Motion for Final Approval of 

Settlement: 

121 days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

Last Day to File Response to Objections (if any): 121 days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

Fairness Hearing and Fee Approval Hearing: 136 days after entry of 

preliminary approval 

List of All Qualifying Settlement Members (“List”): 10 days after Effective Date

Payment of Attorneys’ Fees: 10 days after Effective Date

Counsel’s Changes, if any, to List: 5 days after production of List

Deadline for Payments of Claims to Settlement 

Members and Named Plaintiffs: 

25 business days after Effective 

Date 

Report on Settlement Administration: 120 days after Effective Date

Plaintiffs File A Satisfaction of Judgment and Other 

Pleadings Required to Conclude the Case: 

125 days after Effective Date

 

Dated: 10/16/08 

 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 21 of 22
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 

Case 4:06-cv-02846-SBA Document 53 Filed 10/15/08 Page 22 of 22