Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00099-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Siemens
Defendant
Siemens Corporation
Defendant
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Defendant
Siemens USA
Defendant
Jarrid J. Whitley
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARRID J. WHITLEY, on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., also 

doing business as and referred to as 

SIEMENS USA, SIEMENS 

CORPORATION, and SIEMENS, and 

DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 14-cv-00099-MCE-DAD

ORDER

The parties settled this class action and the Court entered final judgment on 

October 7, 2015. ECF No. 40. The Court has received and reviewed the filing from 

class member Gary Schaffer. ECF No. 42. The first page of that filing is a letter that 

explains Schaffer received a distribution check from the claims administrator and was 

“shocked to see how little [he] had received.” Schaffer contends that although he 

worked 135 eligible shifts, his distribution check was based on having worked only fortyfive eligible shifts. Schaffer suggests that the claims administrator’s use of inaccurate 

“eSlic” records is the cause of the discrepancy. He requests that the Court “re-open this 

///

Case 2:14-cv-00099-MCE-DAD Document 45 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

case and subpoena the computer clocking system records,” which are more accurate 

than the “eSlic” records. 

The settlement agreement1 states: “All disputes regarding the number of Eligible 

Shifts worked by a Class Member or the calculation of a Class Member’s Claim Amount 

will be resolved and decided by the Claims Administrator and the Claims Administrator’s 

decision on all such disputes will be final and not subject to appeal.” ECF No. 30 at 16. 

The settlement further explained: 

If for any reason a Class Member disagrees with Defendant’s 

calculation of his or her number of Eligible Shifts, the Class 

Member shall be provided the opportunity to raise such 

disagreement and present any supporting documentation to 

the Claims Administration along with his or her Claim Form. 

The Claims Administrator, in consultation with Defense 

Counsel, shall have the authority, based upon the information 

from Defendant and any information provided by the Class 

Member to issue a final non-appealable decision with regard 

to the number of Eligible Shifts worked by the Class Member. 

Id. at 19. 

Thus, Schaffer’s relief lies with the claims administrator, not the Court. Schaffer 

has not otherwise established a ground for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60. This case shall therefore remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016

 1

 As a class member, Schaffer presumably received the notice mailed to all class members. See

ECF Nos. 31 and 33. That notice explained that class members had access to “the complete file, 

including a copy of the settlement agreement . . . .” ECF No. 31 (Ex. A). 

Case 2:14-cv-00099-MCE-DAD Document 45 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2