[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS NOTICE AND CLASS NOTICE DEADLINES

Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO

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.

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 No. 3:17-cv-00123-JST

Assigned to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS NOTICE 

AND CLASS NOTICE DEADLINES 

Case No. 17-CV-03850-JST

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 14
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS NOTICE AND CLASS NOTICE DEADLINES

Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

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

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Correct Class Notice, and finding good 

cause appearing, hereby ORDERS that: 

1. The deadline to send out Class Notice should be extended from July 31,2020, to August 

7, 2020; 

2. The last day for class members to request exclusion should be extended by one week, to 

October 9, 2020: 

3. The fourth paragraph under Section 2 on page 3 of the Settlement Class Notice should be 

amended to read: “Defendants' records indicated that you worked the following 

Qualifying Shifts: __Qualifying Shifts of 8 hours, which received a value of .8 Credits;_ 

Qualifying Shifts of more than 8 hours and less than 12 hours, which received a value of 

1.0 Credit; and _ Qualifying Shifts of 12 hours or more, which received a value of 1.2 

Credits.” 

4. The second paragraph in Section 8 of the Settlement Class Notice should be amended to 

read: “(1) The Administrator shall calculate the total number of Qualifying Shifts worked 

by all Class Members during the Class Period; and (2) the Administrator shall then give 

Qualifying Shifts of 12 hours or more a value of 1.2 credits; Qualifying shifts of more 

than 8 hours and less than 12 hours, a value of 1.0 credits; and Qualifying Shifts of 8 

hours, a value of .8 Credits.” 

5. The first sentence of the first paragraph in Section 10 of the Settlement Class Notice 

should be amended to read: “The amount of your Individual Settlement Payment will be 

based on the number of Qualifying Shifts you worked in operations, and whether they 

were 8 hours, more than 8 and less than 12 hours, or more than 12 hours, at any one of 

the locations referenced above in Section 1 at any time during the Class Period.” 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 14
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS NOTICE AND CLASS NOTICE DEADLINES

Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

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

6. The Amended Class Notice attached hereto as Exhibit “A” with the changes identified 

above is approved for mailing to the Class. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________ 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT A 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 14
Page 4 of 10 

holds that rest periods under that wage order cannot be “on call.” Plaintiffs contend that Tesoro requires refinery, 

terminal facility, and plant operators to maintain radios during rest breaks in violation of their interpretation of 

this California Supreme Court rest break decision. 

 

Plaintiffs allege that Tesoro violated California’s wage and hour laws by not providing them with rest breaks, by 

failing to pay them premium wages for missed rest breaks, and by failing to provide accurate wage statements. 

In addition to alleging violations of the California Labor Code, Plaintiffs also have asserted claims under 

California Business & Professions Code section 17200 and the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 

2004 (“PAGA”), California Labor Code sections 2698 et seq., based on the same alleged Labor Code violations. 

 

Tesoro disagrees with Plaintiffs’ interpretation of rest period law, denies all allegations in the Lawsuit, and 

contends it has complied with California law at all times. The Settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing 

by Tesoro or an indication that any law was violated. Tesoro is confident it has strong legal and factual defenses 

to these claims, but both sides recognize the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation. 

 

The Settlement is the result of two mediated sessions conducted on April 11, 2018 and July 16, 2018, by 

experienced mediators who facilitated the Parties’ good faith, serious, and informed arm’s length negotiations. 

Both sides agree that in light of the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation, the Settlement is fair 

and appropriate under the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Class Members. 

 

The Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the Class Representatives’ claims in this litigation or Defendants’ 

defenses to those claims. The Settlement is a compromise and is not an admission of liability on the part of 

Defendants. 

4. Who are the Parties in this Lawsuit?

Jon Valliere, Eileen Foster, Antonio Garcia, Samantha West, and Jinetra Bonner are the Plaintiffs, and the 

appointed the Class Representatives in this Class Action. Each has been employed as an Operator at one or more 

of the facilities identified in Section 1 of this Notice sometime during the Class Period. 

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC and Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC are the Defendants in this Class 

Action which operate the oil refineries and distribution facilities referenced in Section 1 of this Notice. 

5. Why is this litigation a Class Action? 

In a class action, one or more people called the Class Representatives sue on behalf of themselves and other 

people who they allege have similar claims. The group of people with allegedly similar claims is called a “class.” 

Each person receiving this notice is a “Class Member” for purposes of this Settlement. If a court certifies (or 

approves) a class, that one court resolves the issues for all Class Members except for those who request to be 

excluded from the Class and this Settlement. In this case, for settlement purposes, the Court certified the 

following Class: 

 

All current and former employees of Defendants (or any of their affiliates or successors) who worked a 

rotating 8-hour, 10-hour, or 12-hour shift in operations at any time during the Class Period at the i) 

Martinez Refinery or Chem Plant in Martinez, California; ii) the Los Angeles Refinery, Carson 

Operations, in Carson and Long Beach, California; iii) the Los Angeles Refinery, Wilmington 

Operations, in Wilmington, California; iv) the Tesoro Logistics terminal facilities at the Martinez 

Refinery; and v) the Long Beach Terminal, T2, Berth 121, and East Hynes in Long Beach, Carson, 

Signal Hill, and/or Wilmington, California. 

According to Tesoro’s records, you are a member of the Class. 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 119 Filed 08/06/20 Page 14 of 14