Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Defendant
Measurecomp, LLC
Defendant
James Richardson
Plaintiff
THD At-Home Services, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

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

KENNETH H. YOON (State Bar No. 198443) 

STEPHANIE E. YASUDA (State Bar No. 265480) LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON 

One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: (213) 612-0988 

Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 

Attorneys for Plaintiff James Richardson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES RICHARDSON, as an 

individual and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; HOME DEPOT 

U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; 

MEASURECOMP, LLC, a Michigan 

limited liability company, and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:14-CV-00273-BAM

[Assigned to Hon. Barbara A. 

McAuliffe, Courtroom 8] 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Plaintiff James Richardson (“Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”), 

having moved for entry of an order (a) preliminarily approving the settlement of 

the above-referenced action pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (b) 

conditionally certifying a class for purposes of proceedings in connection with 

the final approval of the Settlement Agreement, (c) approving the form of notice 

of settlement and directing the manner of delivery thereof, (d) approving Kenneth 

H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda, Law Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon as Class 

Counsel.1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Settlement Agreement is hereby PRELIMINARILY 

APPROVED as appearing on its face to be fair reasonable, and adequate and to 

have been the product of serious, informed, and extensive arm’s-length 

negotiations among Plaintiff and Defendants THD At-Home Services, Inc. and 

MeasureComp, LLC (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”). In making this 

preliminary finding, the Court considered the nature of the claims, the relative 

strength of Plaintiff’s claims, the amounts and kinds of benefits paid in 

settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among the class members, and 

the fact that the settlement represents a compromise of the Parties’ respective 

positions rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial. The Court further 

preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement have no obvious deficiencies 

and do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual class 

member. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily finds that the agreement was 

entered into in good faith. 

2. The Court finds preliminarily, and for purposes of proceeding 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for settlement purposes only and 

on approval of the agreement only, that: 

 

1 On September 11, 2015, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

(Docs. 47, 48). For that reason, the action was reassigned to the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe for all 

purposes. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; see also L.R. 301, 305. (Doc. 49).

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

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

a. The class is sufficiently numerous because the proposed 

settlement class includes approximately 143 persons; 

b. Class members are ascertainable as the class sought to be 

represented is adequately defined and ascertainable from 

Defendants’ records; 

c. The proposed class asserts common claims arising out of the 

same alleged uniform policies and practices; 

d. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those asserted by the class as 

the class representative alleges he suffered the same 

injury(ies), in the same manner, as the proposed class; 

e. There is no evidence suggesting the class representative or 

class counsel have a conflict of interest with other class 

members, Plaintiff’s counsel is qualified and competent and 

has substantial experience in wage and hour class actions, and 

Plaintiff’s counsel and the named Plaintiff have and will 

continue to prosecute this action on behalf of the class. 

3. Accordingly, for purposes of the agreement only, this 

litigation is CERTIFIED as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23. The class is defined as follows: 

plaintiff and any individuals employed by THD At-Home Services, Inc. and/or Measure Comp, LLC as measure techs in California 

between January 23, 2010 and July 16, 2015, excluding however, any individuals whose claims were fully released in connection with the class settlement in Mejia v. MeasureComp, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC 409729. 

4. The Court hereby APPOINTS as class counsel for settlement 

purposes only Kenneth H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda, Law Offices of 

Kenneth H. Yoon. 

5. The Court hereby APPOINTS as Class Representative for 

settlement purposes Plaintiff James Richardson. 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

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. The Court hereby APPROVES CPT Group, Inc. as settlement 

administrator for the purposes of this settlement. 

7. A final approval and fairness hearing is hereby SCHEDULED 

to be held before the Court on March 4, 2016 at 9:00 am for the following 

purposes: 

a. to determine finally whether this litigation satisfies the 

applicable prerequisites for class action treatment for settlement purposes 

only; 

b. to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, 

reasonable and adequate and should be granted final approval by the Court; 

c. to determine whether an order of final approval as 

should be entered, and to determine whether the releases should be 

released of and from the released claims as provided in the agreement; 

d. to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation of 

the gross settlement amount is fair and reasonable and should be approved 

by the Court; 

e. to finally consider Plaintiff’s application for an 

Enhancement Payment; 

f. to finally determine whether class counsel’s application 

for an award of attorney fees and costs is fair, reasonable, and adequate 

and should be approved by the Court; 

g. to determine that the settlement administrator’s costs 

should be paid from the gross settlement amount; 

h. to consider the PAGA payment; and 

i. to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem 

appropriate. 

8. The form of class notice attached hereto as Exhibit A is 

hereby APPROVED. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after preliminary 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

approval, Defendants shall provide the settlement administrator with the name, 

last known mailing address, social security number, hire dates, and dates of 

termination, if applicable. No later than forty-five (45) calendar after the date of 

entry of this order, the settlement administrator will send via first class mail the 

documents constituting the notice to each settlement class member by first-class 

regular U.S. Mail. 

9. The Court finds that the class notice, along with the related 

notification materials, constitute the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances and are in full compliance with the laws of the State of California, 

the United States Constitution, and the requirements of due process. The Court 

further finds that the notifications fully and accurately inform settlement class 

members of all material elements of the proposed settlement, of settlement class 

members’ right to dispute their share of the settlement, of the settlement class 

members’ right to be excluded from the settlement class, and of each settlement 

class member’s right and opportunity to object to the Settlement. 

10. The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed procedure 

whereby all class members who do not timely request exclusion from the 

settlement will be bound by the agreement. The Court hereby APPROVES the 

proposed response deadline of 45 calendar days from the initial mailing of the 

class notice. 

11. The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed procedure for 

requesting exclusion from the settlement class, as set forth in the class notice. 

12. All costs of mailing of the notice, whether foreseen or not, 

shall be paid from the gross settlement amount, including the cost of searching 

for Class Members’ addresses as provided in as provided in the agreement. All 

other reasonable costs of the settlement administrator shall also be paid from the 

gross settlement amount as provided in the agreement. 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

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

13. All objections to the settlement must be filed by mailing them 

to the Clerk of the Court, who will file objections on the Court’s electronic filing 

system and provide notice to all counsel of record. The deadline to object is 45 

days after the mailing of the notice. If mailed, the objection must be postmarked 

on or prior to 45 days after the mailing of the notice. Objections must state their 

basis and if any objector intends to appear in person or by counsel at the final 

approval hearing, he or she must include such fact and state the purpose for his or 

her appearance in the objection. Objectors do not need to appear to have their 

objections considered. The parties will be permitted to respond in writing to all 

objections, which responses must be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the 

final approval and fairness hearing. Settlement class members who fail to file 

timely written objections will be deemed to have waived any objections and will 

be foreclosed from making any objection to the settlement.

14. It is further ordered that pending further order of this Court, 

all proceedings in this matter except those contemplated herein and as part of the 

Settlement are stayed and all dates other than the final approval and fairness 

hearing are vacated. 

15. Jurisdiction is hereby retained over this Action and the Parties 

to the action, and each of the class members for all matters relating to this Action, 

this settlement, including (without limitation) all matters relating to the 

administration, interpretation, effectuation, and/or enforcement of this settlement 

and this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 51 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 6