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 Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC

[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER

SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 204514)

shaun@setarehlaw.com

THOMAS SEGAL (SBN 222791)

thomas@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907

Beverly Hills, California 90212

Telephone: (310) 888-7771

Facsimile: (310) 888-0109

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

MARCUS CHISM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS CHISM, on behalf of himself, all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEPSICO, INC., a North Carolina 

Corporation; FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; FIRST ADVANTAGE 

BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., a 

Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, 

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC

[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 94 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 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

2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC

[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement came for hearing 

before this Court on April 26, 2018. The Court hereby determines and orders as follows:

1. The Settlement Agreement is hereby provisionally approved subject to further 

consideration at the Final Approval hearing.

2. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate” 

based on the value of the claims in the case, the monetary value of the proposed settlement and the 

risks that the plaintiffs would face in proceeding with litigation. The Settlement was arrived at after 

sufficient investigation and discovery and was based on a mediator’s proposal from an experienced 

mediator. It appears that the settlement negotiations were at arms-length.

3. The Court finds for settlement purposes only that: (i) the proposed Settlement Class 

is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable; (ii) that commonality exists as to the 

Settlement Class; (iii) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class which 

predominate over any individual questions; (iv) the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the Settlement 

Class; (v) Plaintiff and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the 

Settlement Class; and (vi) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy.

4. For settlement purposes, the Court certifies the following class:

“All applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with Frito-Lay 

North America, Inc. and on whom background checks were conducted during the Covered 

Periods; excluding individuals who were members of a separate class in a prior background 

check class action, Roe v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 4:14-cv-00751-HSG (N.D. Cal.) The Covered 

Periods are a) for Frito-Lay frontline non-exempt positions, the period from January 12, 

2015 through November 7, 2016, and (b) for Frito-Lay salaried/ exempt positions, the 

period from January 12, 2015 through December 15, 2016.” 

5. The Court appoints the Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel for the Settlement 

Class.

6. The Court appoints Marcus Chism as the representative of the Settlement Class.

7. The Long Form Notice and Postcard Notice and provisions for disseminating those 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 94 Filed 05/14/18 Page 2 of 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

3 Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC

[AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER

materials and information, attached to the Declaration of Shaun Setareh, are consistent with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and are approved subject to the modifications of the notice 

process and Postcard Notice and Request for Exclusion Form set forth in the May 4, 2018 

Stipulation Re Administrative Motion to Grant Preliminary Approval With Modified Notice 

Procedures and Notice Postcard. These materials (a) provide the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances; (b) are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement 

Class of the pendency of the action, the terms of the proposed Settlement, and of their right to 

exclude themselves from, or object to, the proposed settlement; (c) are reasonable and constitute 

due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) fully comply 

with United States law. 

8. The Court hereby approves and appoints KCC LLC as the Claims Administrator.

9. The Court orders the following Settlement deadlines which assume a preliminary 

approval date of May 10, 2018:

Defendant’s Production of Class 

List to Settlement Administrator

May 24, 2018

Mailing of Postcard Notice and 

Emailing of Notice

June 7, 2018

Response and Objection Deadline July 23, 2018

Request for Exclusion Deadline July 23, 2018

Deadline for Filing Motion for 

Attorney Fees

July 9, 2018

Deadline for Filing Motion for 

Final Approval Motion

August 2, 2018

Final Approval Hearing September 6, 2018 at 10:00am

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

The Honorable Vince Chhabria

33991835.2

May 14, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 94 Filed 05/14/18 Page 3 of 3