UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIDERO SOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00251-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 284

The motion for preliminary approval is denied. This is so for at least three reasons, all of 

which seem to be common problems with wage and hour settlements – particularly those

involving both state law claims and FLSA claims – brought on behalf of workers in multiple 

states. 

1. The settlement group includes a class of California workers, a class of Washington 

workers, and a collective of workers who are covered by the FLSA. This FLSA group includes 

workers from California and Washington (so those people are members of both a state law class 

and the FLSA collective). But the FLSA group also includes workers from other states, and no 

state law claims are being asserted on behalf of those workers. The members of the California 

and Washington classes are, under the settlement agreement, entitled to triple the recovery per 

week of work performed as the members of the FLSA collective. But this would only make 

sense if the FLSA collective members from the other states were not leaving money on the table 

that could be recovered through state law claims. Counsel for the plaintiffs have provided no 

analysis of what those workers could potentially recover under state law, leaving the Court to 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 286 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 2
2

guess whether the FLSA collective members from other states are being shortchanged.1 

2. Nor have Counsel for the plaintiffs offered any meaningful explanation for the decision 

to give workers from Washington the same recovery per week of work as the workers from 

California. At least at first glance, it appears California law entitles workers to a greater recovery 

for the violations than Washington law does. Without a clear explanation and careful analysis of 

the differences in potential recovery between the California and Washington workers, the Court 

cannot approve this aspect of the allocation.

3. This is a case in which the alleged wage and hour violations appear to have substantial 

merit. They also appear to be systemic. In such cases, although a substantial discount may still 

occasionally be justified, it’s difficult for a court to swallow such a discount without at least 

receiving some assurance – perhaps through a prospective relief provision in the settlement 

agreement or perhaps through an explanation of how the defendant’s practices have changed –

that the violations are not likely to recur. The motion for preliminary approval in this case

contains no such assurance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

 

1

It’s not clear from the papers whether the parties intended for the FLSA collective members to 

release their state law claims as a condition of cashing their settlement checks. If so, the 

allocation seems per se inappropriate, at least insofar as those workers would be able to recover 

more through state law claims. If not, then at an absolute minimum, any FLSA collective 

member would need to be clearly notified that they are not releasing state law claims and that 

there may be a greater recovery under those claims (although one could imagine arguments that 

even such a notice would not justify such a disparity between the class members and the FLSA 

collective members, given the remote possibility that the collective members would ever pursue 

separate state law claims).

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 286 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 2