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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAY STRONG, et al., on behalf of 

himself and all similarly situated 

individuals, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

C & H SUGAR COMPANY, INC.; 

AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; 

and DOES 1-100 inclusive, 

 Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00480-RS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR (1) 

CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION (2) 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

CERTIFYING CLASS; (3) 

CERTIFICATION OF COLLECTIVE 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE; (4) 

APPOINTMENT OF COLLECTIVE AND 

CLASS COUNSEL; (5) PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND 

NOTICE THEREOF; (6) SETTING 

SCHEDULE FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF SETTLEMENT 

 

The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff’s points and 

authorities in support of his unopposed motion, supporting declarations, and relevant exhibits. 

Based upon a review of the record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 

1. To the extent defined in the settlement and release (the “Agreement”) attached 

hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, the terms in this Order shall have the 

meanings set forth therein. 
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

2. This action satisfies the requirements for conditional certification as a "Collective 

Action" under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The questions of law and fact common 

to the members of the collective action with respect to the Defendants’ calculation of the 

“regular rate” predominate over questions relevant only to individual members of the collective 

action. Collective action adjudication is superior to any other method of adjudication for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this matter. 

3. This action is conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

4. For purposes of conditional certification as a Collective Action Class, the parties 

agree Plaintiff is similarly situated to all individuals employed by Defendants in non-exempt 

positions covered by the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Sugar Workers 

Union No. 1, Seafarers International Union of N.A. AFL-CIO (“SWU Local 1”) and Defendants 

that worked beyond forty hours in a week and received any Incentives as defined in the 

Settlement Agreement and the motion at any time within the three year period prior to the date 

the action was filed or the effective date of any applicable tolling agreement. (“Collective Action 

Class”) The Collective Action Class shall be divided into subclasses as follows: 

a. “Collective Action Opt-In Plaintiff Subclass” shall be defined as all 

Collective Action Class members who have opted into this action. 

b. “Collective Action Putative Plaintiff Subclass” shall be defined as all 

Collective Action Class members who have not opted into this action. 

5. This action also satisfies the requirements for preliminary certification as a "Class 

Action” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. The questions of law and fact common to the 

members of the class with respect to the Defendants’ calculation of the regular rate as it relates to 

the California law claims alleged in the action predominate over questions relevant only to 

individual members of the class. Class adjudication is superior to any other method of 

adjudication for the fair and efficient resolution of this matter. 

6. For the purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, this court 

preliminarily certifies a class consisting of all individuals employed by Defendants in non-
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 3 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

exempt positions covered by the CBA that worked beyond forty hours in a week and received 

any Incentives as defined in the Settlement Agreement and the motion at any time within the four 

year period prior to the date the action was filed or the effective date of any applicable tolling 

agreement whichever is earlier. (“California Class”) The California Class is divided into 

subclasses as follows: 

a. “California Opt-In Plaintiff Subclass” shall be defined as all Collective 

Action Class members who have opted into this action. 

b. “California Putative Plaintiff Subclass” shall be defined as all 

Collective Action Class members who have not opted into this action. 

7. The California Class and subclasses as defined in Plaintiff’s motion are sufficiently 

numerous that joinder is not practicable. The California Class has almost three hundred 

individuals, while each subclass exceeds one hundred individuals each. 

8. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the California 

Class and subclasses. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the California 

Class and subclasses include: 

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in a 

failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor Code § 204; 

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in 

Defendants’ unlawful withholding of wages in violation of California Labor Code 

§§ 221, 222 and 223; 

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in the 

failure to timely pay final wages to class members that separated from 

employment from Defendants in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 

202 during the relevant time period; 

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in a 

failure to maintain required records in violation of California Labor Code § 1174 

and IWC Wage Order 1-2001 § 7; 

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in 

furnishing wage statements that did not comply with the requirements of 

California Labor §226(a); 
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 4 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

 Whether Defendants alleged under calculation of the regular rate resulted in 

furnishing non-compliant wage statements that constituted an “injury” for the 

purposes of California Labor Code § 226(e) entitling them to damages and/or 

penalties; 

 Whether, based on the foregoing, California Class members are entitled to 

penalties pursuant to PAGA (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et. seq.); and 

 Whether, based on the foregoing, Defendants violated California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et. seq.) 

Plaintiff need only establish one common question of law or fact in order to meet the 

threshold set by Rule 23(a)(2) and Plaintiff’s above showing satisfies that requirement. 

9. The named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the California Class and 

subclasses he seeks to represent. Plaintiff Strong’s claims are typical of those of the California 

Class because they all arise out of Defendants’ calculation of the regular rate and the exclusion 

therefrom of the disputed items of remuneration used to determine premium compensation for 

overtime hours worked. 

10. The proposed class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests 

of the Collective Action and California Class and the respective subclasses. 

11. The proposed representative has retained counsel who have the experience, 

knowledge and resources necessary to provide adequate representation of the Collective Action 

and California Class as well as the subclasses defined herein. Plaintiff’s counsel has also 

vigorously investigated and identified the claims in this action as well as expended resources in 

furtherance thereof. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(g)(1). 

12. The Court hereby preliminarily approves Plaintiff Ray Strong as representative of 

the Collective Action and California Class as well as the respective subclasses, and appoints the 

law firm of Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C. as Class Counsel thereto. 

13. Subject to the receipt and consideration by the Court of any objections to or 

comments on the Agreement at the hearing described in Paragraph 18 of this Order, the Court finds 

the Agreement and all of its terms to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of the 
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 5 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

members of the California Class as defined herein. The proposed settlement falls within the range 

of possible settlement approval, was negotiated at arms-length, and is worthy of being presented 

to the class members for their comments. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the proposed 

settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the FLSA. 

14. The Court hereby appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator. 

15. By no later than 21 days after the date of this order, the settlement administrator 

shall cause to be mailed by first class mail in substantially the same form submitted with the 

parties joint motion and in a manner consistent with this Settlement Agreement and this order, 

the “Notice Packet” consisting of the (1) Notice of Proposed Collective & Class Action 

Settlement and Settlement Hearing attached as Exhibits B & C, (2) the Claim Forms attached 

hereto as Exhibits D & E, and (3) the Opt-Out Forms attached hereto as Exhibits F & G, to the 

current or last known address of each Collective Action and California Class member. 

16. The notice procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the motion is 

hereby found to be the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and 

sufficient notice, in full compliance with the requirements of Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law. 

17. All reasonable costs incurred in identifying and notifying class members, as well 

as administering the settlement, shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

18. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), a hearing (the “Settlement 

Hearing”) shall be held on Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 1:30 P.M., before the Honorable 

Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, San 

Francisco Division, in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, 

California to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement 

and whether it should be finally approved, including its provision for a service payment to the 

named Plaintiff Ray Strong as well as the motion of Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses. 

19. Members of the Collective Action Putative Plaintiff subclass who do not file a 

claim form will be deemed not to have waived any rights under the FLSA. 
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 6 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

20. Members of the California Class who do not opt-out of the Class within thirty 

(30) days from the date the settlement administrator mails the Notice Packet will be deemed 

to be a California Class Member and will be bound by the terms of the proposed settlement 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

21. No class member shall be heard in opposition to the proposed settlement, or, if 

approved, the judgments and other orders to be entered thereon, to the requested award of 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, or to the requested payment to the named Plaintiff, and 

no papers or briefs submitted by any such person shall be accepted or considered by the Court 

unless, such person has filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon counsel for all 

parties a written statement that indicates the specific basis for such person’s objections, along 

with any supporting documentation post marked within thirty (30) days from the date the 

settlement administrator mails the Notice Packet. This deadline shall be no earlier than 

twenty-eight days prior to the date of the Settlement Hearing set forth in paragraph 18 of this 

order. 

22. On or before the fourteenth day before the final approval hearing, Class Counsel 

shall file a motion for Final Approval of the proposed settlement and dismissal of action that 

addresses any objections timely filed in accordance with this order. 

23. On or before the fourteenth day prior to the final approval hearing, Class Counsel 

shall file with the Court and serve on all parties their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses, as well as the service payment, and all papers in support thereof, to be heard 

concurrently with the final approval hearing set forth in Paragraph 18 of this order. 

24. Any class member who has met the requirements of paragraph 20 herein, or his or 

her representative, may appear at the Settlement Hearing in person and be heard to the extent 

allowed by the Court in support of, or in opposition to, the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy 

of the proposed Settlement, the requested award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and the 

requested payment to Named Plaintiff Ray Strong. Any Class Member who does not make his or 

her objections as required by Paragraph 20 herein shall be deemed to have waived such objections 

and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, and 
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 

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Strong, et. al. v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc., et. al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 7 Case No. 3:17-cv-00480-RS

adequacy of the proposed settlement, the requested award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the 

requested payment to named Plaintiff Ray Strong unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

25. The Court expressly reserves its right to continue the Settlement Hearing without 

further direct notice to the Class. 

26. Class Counsel shall create and maintain a website, www.mastagni.com/c&hsettlement for the benefit of Collective Action and California Class members. This website shall 

provide the pleadings file related to the proposed settlement, the contact information for the 

settlement administrator as well as up to date information regarding the date and time of the 

Court’s Settlement Hearing. 

27. Non-substantive amendments may be made to the Settlement Agreement or 

Notice Packet upon written agreement of the Class Counsel and counsel for Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 6, 2018 

_________________________________ 

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE