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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTORS’ STATEMENT REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

Case Nos. 4:17-CV-00123-JST; 4:17-CV-03850-JST 

EILEEN GOLDSMITH (SBN 218029) 

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com 

Attorneys for Objectors Norman 

Anthony Rogers, Samuel McDonald, 

and Brian Dumont 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JON VALLIERE, EILEEN FOSTER, 

ANTONIO GARCIA, and SAMANTHA 

WEST, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated current and former employees, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING 

COMPANY LLC, TESORO LOGISTICS GP, 

LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-CV-00123-JST 

Case No. 4:17-CV-03850-JST 

[Assigned to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar] 

OBJECTORS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

OBJECTORS’ STATEMENT REGARDING 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT 

APPROVAL [Dkt. 111, 113] 

JINETRA BONNER, individually, on behalf 

herself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING 

COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 114 Filed 12/04/19 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

1

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTORS’ STATEMENT REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

Case Nos. 4:17-CV-00123-JST; 4:17-CV-03850-JST 

Defendant has previously represented to this Court that it “has no objection to Plaintiffs’ 

proposal that, should the Court find it desirable, it may confirm the neutral reality that approval of the 

Settlement Agreement does not waive whatever rights the Objectors or the USW may have to pursue 

claims for dues deduction from the settlement payments—or any defenses that Tesoro may have to 

the same—in a separate forum.” Dkt. 103 (Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Norman 

Anthony Rogers, Samuel Mcdonald, and Brian Dumont’s Partial Objection to Motion for Preliminary 

Approval of Class Action Settlement) at 2 (emphasis added). Defendant has no basis to retreat from 

that position now (see Dkt. 113), having repeatedly told this Court that the proper venue for 

determining whether the wage component of the settlement payments is subject to dues deduction is 

the arbitral forum provided by the grievance procedure under the USW collective bargaining 

agreements. See Dkt. 111 at 1 (summarizing Defendant’s prior statements regarding arbitration). 

Objectors respectfully request that the Court, if it chooses to include any statement in its final 

approval order regarding the dues deduction issue, use the language originally proposed by Plaintiffs 

(see Dkt. 100 at 2) and to which Defendant expressly waived any objection. See Dkt. 111 at 1-2; Dkt. 

103 at 2. 

Dated: December 4, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /S/ Eileen B. Goldsmith 

 Eileen B. Goldsmith 

 

EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH 

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

Attorneys for Objectors Norman Anthony Rogers, 

Samuel McDonald, and Brian Dumont 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 114 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 2