[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977)

David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409)

Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872)

SCHNEIDER WALLACE

COTTRELL KONECKY 

WOTKYNS LLP

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400

Emeryville, California 94608

Telephone: (415) 421-7100

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com

sgordon@schneiderwallace.com

[Additional Counsel listed on next page]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement

Classes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIDERO SOTO, STEVEN STRICKLEN,

STEEVE FONDROSE, LORENZO

ORTEGA, and JOSE ANTONIO FARIAS, JR., 

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COMCAST

CORPORATION, and COMCAST CABLE

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC; 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00251-VC

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AS 

MODIFIED FINAL APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT

Date: October 17, 2019

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 4 (17th Floor)

Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria

Complaint Filed: January 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 9
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Shanon J. Carson (pro hac vice)

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen (pro hac vice)

BERGER MONTAGUE PC

1818 Market Street, Suite 3600

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Telephone: (215) 875-3000

Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

Sca.rson@bm.net

sschalman-bergen@bm.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the 

Settlement Classes

 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 9
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement in the abovecaptioned Action came on for hearing on October 17, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of the abovecaptioned court, the Honorable Vince Chhabria presiding. Defendants O.C. Communications, Inc. 

(“OCC”), Comcast Corporation, and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

(collectively, “Comcast”) did not oppose the motion.

Plaintiffs allege eighteen causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et 

seq., and Washington wage and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs assert the first cause of action 

under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the Collective for Defendants’ alleged failure to 

compensate for all hours worked, including legally-mandated overtime premiums and/or minimum 

wages. Plaintiffs assert seventeen other causes of action under California law and Washington law, 

on behalf of themselves and the California Class and Washington Class, respectively, for failure to 

compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime and minimum wages; failure to authorize, 

permit, and/or make available meal and rest periods; failure to reimburse for necessary business 

expenditures; waiting time penalties; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and 

related violations. Plaintiffs also bring claims for penalties pursuant to § 2699(a) of the California 

Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) and penalties pursuant to § 2699(f) of the PAGA. 

After conditional certification of the FLSA Collective, protracted discovery disputes, 

production of over 1.5 million pages of documents, motions to compel arbitration by OCC and 

Comcast, and a prior mediation, the Parties entered into private mediation before respected neutral 

mediator Jeff Ross to try to resolve the claims. As a result of the mediation on October 18, 2018, and 

subsequent settlement negotiations through the mediator, the Parties reached agreement on the terms 

of a settlement. The Parties then entered in a Class Action Settlement Agreement, as amended by the 

Addendum to Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement,” filed with the Court at ECF 289-

2). 

A hearing was held before this Court on June 13, 2019 for Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. The Court granted the motion. See

ECF 296. Before the Court is the last stage of the settlement approval process: final approval of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 9
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Settlement. Plaintiffs have separately moved for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs and service 

awards for the Class Representatives. See ECF 297.

At the final approval hearing, Littler Mendelson, P.C. appeared for OCC, Morgan, Lewis & 

Bockius LLP appeared for Comcast, and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and 

Berger Montague PC appeared for Plaintiffs and the Classes and Collective. 

Having reviewed the papers and documents presented, having heard the statements of counsel,

and having considered the matter, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the Class and Collective Members 

asserted in this proceeding and over all Parties to the action.

2. The Court finds that zero (0) California Class Members have objected to the 

Settlement and zero (0) California Class Members have requested exclusion from the Settlement. The 

Court finds that zero (0) Washington Class Members have objected to the Settlement and zero (0) 

Washington Class Members have requested exclusion from the Settlement. Additionally, 1,019

Collective Members have filed timely and valid opt-in forms. 

3. The Court hereby GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL of the terms and conditions 

contained in the Settlement as to the California and Washington Classes. The Court finds that the 

terms of the Settlement are within the range of approval, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and applicable law.

4. The Court finds that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable as to the 

California and Washington Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further 

litigation relating to class certification, potential individual arbitrations, liability and damages issues, 

and potential appeals; (2) significant discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been 

conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective 

positions; (3) settlement at this time will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be 

presented by the further prosecution of the litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been 

reached as the result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive negotiations between the Parties. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith with respect to the 

California and Washington Classes.

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 9
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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. The Court hereby makes final its earlier conditional certification of the California 

Class and the Washington Class, in accordance with the Settlement, for purposes of this Settlement 

only. The California Class is defined as “all Technicians who are or were employed by OCC in the 

State of California at any time from January 18, 2013 through December 21, 2018, and who do not 

validly exclude themselves from the Settlement.” The Washington Class is defined as “all 

Technicians who are or were employed by OCC in the State of Washington from March 13, 2015 

through December 21, 2018, and who do not validly exclude themselves from the Settlement.”

6. The Court hereby confirms its approval of the terms and conditions contained in the 

Settlement as to the Collective as set forth in its June 17, 2019 order. See ECF 296. The Court has 

already found that the terms of the Settlement represent a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona 

fide dispute, and are within the range of possible approval, pursuant to the FLSA and applicable law.

7. The Court has also already found that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable

as to the Collective Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation 

relating to class certification, potential individual arbitrations, liability and damages issues, and 

potential appeals; (2) significant discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been 

conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective 

positions; (3) settlement at this time will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be 

presented by the further prosecution of the litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been 

reached as the result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive negotiations between the Parties. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith with respect to the 

FLSA Collective.

8. In accordance with the Court’s previous orders, the Collective is defined as “all OptIn Plaintiffs who are or were employed by OCC at any time from and including January 18, 2014 

through December 21, 2018.”

9. The Court hereby confirms the appointment of CPT Group, Inc. as Settlement 

Administrator, and approves its reasonable administration costs of $40,000, which are to be paid from 

the total Settlement. 

10. The Court hereby FINALLY APPOINTS Plaintiffs Soto, Stricklen, and Farias as 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 5 of 9
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Class Representatives for the California Class, Plaintiff Ortega as Class Representative for the 

Washington Class, and all Plaintiffs as Collective Representatives.

11. The Court hereby FINALLY APPOINTS Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky 

Wotkyns LLP and Berger Montague PC as Counsel for the Settlement Classes and Collective.

12. The Court finds that the approved Notice of Settlement (submitted to the Court at ECF 

296-2) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and is in full compliance with 

the applicable laws and the requirements of due process. The Court further finds that the Notice of 

Settlement fully and accurately informed the California and Washington Class Members of all 

material elements of the proposed Settlement, of their right to be excluded from the Settlement, and 

of their right and opportunity to object to the Settlement. A full opportunity has been afforded to the 

Class Members to participate in this hearing and all Class Members and other persons wishing to be 

heard have been heard. Accordingly, the Court determines that all California and Washington Class 

Members, since none timely and properly executed a request for exclusion, are bound by this Order 

and the Judgment.

13. The Court further finds that the Notice of Settlement fully and accurately informed the 

Collective Members of all material elements of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court determines 

that all Collective Members who submitted timely opt-ins are bound by this Order and the Judgment.

14. The Court FINALLY APPROVES Class and Collective Counsel’s request for 

attorneys’ fees of one-third of the original $7,500,000 Gross Settlement Amount, for a total of 

$2,500,000 in fees. This amount is justified under the common fund doctrine, the range of awards 

ordered in this District and Circuit, the excellent results obtained, the substantial risk borne by Class 

Counsel in litigating this matter, the high degree of skill and quality of work performed, the financial 

burden imposed by the contingency basis of Class Counsel’ representation of Plaintiffs and the 

Classes and Collective, and the additional work required of Class Counsel to bring this Settlement to 

conclusion. The Court finds the fee award is further supported by a lodestar crosscheck, whereby it 

finds that the hourly rates of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Berger 

Montague PC are reasonable, and that the estimated hours expended are reasonable. In fact, Class 

Counsel’s total lodestar amount is less than the requested fee. Thus, the Court applies a negative 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 6 of 9
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

multiplier to Class Counsel’s lodestar in issuing this fee award.

15. 10 percent of the attorney fee award will be held back pending the filing of a PostDistribution Accounting by class counsel. The Post-Distribution Accounting should explain in detail 

when payments were made to class members, the number of members who were sent payments, the 

total amount of money paid out to members, the average and median recovery per class members, the 

largest and smallest amounts paid to class members, the number and value of cashed and uncashed 

checks, the number of members who could not be contacted (if any), the amount distributed to any 

cy pres recipient, any significant or recurring concerns communicated by members to the settlement 

administrator and counsel since final approval, and any other issues in settlement administration since 

final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved. Class Counsel are expected to 

diligently supervise the administration of the settlement and remain in close contact with the 

settlement administrator. With the Post-Distribution Accounting, class counsel should submit a 

proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees.

16. The Court FINALLY APPROVES Class and Collective Counsel’s request for 

litigation costs in the amount of $207,361.46.

17. The Court FINALLY APPROVES service awards of $15,000.00 for Plaintiff Soto and 

$10,000.00 each for Plaintiffs Stricklen, Fondrose, Ortega, and Farias, and finds that these awards are 

fair and reasonable for the work these individuals provided to the Classes and Collective and the 

broader release they executed than the Class and Collective Members.

18. Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby APPROVES following 

implementation schedule:

Effective Date October 23, 2019

Deadline for OCC to pay the Gross Settlement 

Amount into the Qualified Settlement Fund

November 6, 2019

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to provide Class 

Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel with a final 

report of all Settlement Awards

November 7, 2019

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to transfer the 10 

percent holdback of the attorneys’ fees award 

into a separate interest-bearing account

November 8, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 7 of 9
6

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to make payments 

for attorneys’ fees and costs, service awards, 

Class Member Settlement Awards, and LWDA 

Payment

November 22, 2019

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to send a reminder 

letter to those Class Members who have not yet 

cashed their Class Member Settlement Award 

checks 

February 20, 2020

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to place a 

reminder phone call to those Class Members 

who have not yet cashed their Class Member 

Settlement Award checks 

March 23, 2020

Check-cashing deadline May 20, 2020

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to either distribute 

uncashed check funds to cy pres recipient or 

redistribute such funds to those Class Members 

who cashed their cashed their Class Member 

Settlement Award checks

June 3, 2020

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file the PostDistribution Accounting.June 24, 2020

Deadline for CPT Group, Inc. to release the 10

percent holdback of the attorneys’ fees award to 

Class Counsel 

July 1, 2020, or as otherwise ordered by the 

Court

19. The Court further ORDERS that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings 

in this Action, except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement, are stayed.

20. With this final approval of the Settlement, it is hereby ordered that all claims that are 

released as set forth in the Settlement are hereby barred. 

21. The Court permanently enjoins all of the California and Washington Class Members 

who did not timely exclude themselves (opt-out) from the Settlement, Collective Members, and the 

LWDA from pursuing, or seeking to reopen, any Released Claims (as defined in the Addendum to 

Class Action Settlement Agreement at Paragraph B.17 and the Notice of Settlement at Section 5) 

against any of the “Releasees” (as defined in the Settlement at Paragraph 2.bb).

22. The Court dismisses this Action with prejudice and will enter Judgment consistent 

with the Settlement and this Order to so dismiss the Action and permanently enjoin and bar all 

California and Washington Class Members who did not opt-out of the Settlement, all Collective 

Members, and the LWDA from prosecuting against any Released Claims (as defined in the 

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 8 of 9
7

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC

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

Addendum to Class Action Settlement Agreement at Paragraph B.17 and the Notice of Settlement at 

Section 5) against any of the “Releasees” (as defined in the Settlement at Paragraph 2.bb).

23. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2019 ___________________________

HON. VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge, 

Northern District of California

Case 3:17-cv-00251-VC Document 305 Filed 10/23/19 Page 9 of 9