PLTFFS’ RESPS TO CLASS MEMBERS ROGERS, MCDONALD, & DUMONT’S PARTIAL OBJ TO MOT FOR 

PRELIM APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/ CASE NOS. 3:17-CV-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

1

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

RANDY RENICK (CA Bar No. 179652)

(Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com)

CORNELIA DAI (CA Bar No. 207435)

(Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com)

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP

128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204

Pasadena, California 91103-3645

Telephone: (626) 585-9600

Fax: (626) 577-7079

Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel 

[Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page]

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

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO CLASS 

MEMBERS NORMAN ANTHONY 

ROGERS, SAMUEL MCDONALD, AND 

BRIAN DUMONT’S PARTIAL OBJECTION 

TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLMENT [DKT. 96]

Case No. 17-CV-03850-JST

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 100 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 4
PLTFFS’ RESPS TO CLASS MEMBERS ROGERS, MCDONALD, & DUMONT’S PARTIAL OBJ TO MOT FOR 

PRELIM APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/ CASE NOS. 3:17-CV-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

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

JAY SMITH (CA Bar No. 166105)

(Email: js@gslaw.org)

JOSHUA F. YOUNG (CA Bar No. 232995)

(Email: jyoung@gslaw.org)

GILBERT & SACKMAN

A LAW CORPORATION

3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, California 90010

Telephone: (323) 938-3000

Fax: (323) 937-9139

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER

Timothy D. Cohelan (CA Bar No. 60827)

tcohelan@ckslaw.com

Michael D. Singer (CA Bar No. 115301)

msinger@ckslaw.com

J. Jason Hill (CA Bar No. 179630)

jhill@ckslaw.com

605 “C” Street, Suite 200

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 595-3001

Facsimile: (619) 595-3000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 100 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 4
PLTFFS’ RESPS TO CLASS MEMBERS ROGERS, MCDONALD, & DUMONT’S PARTIAL OBJ TO MOT FOR 

PRELIM APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/ CASE NOS. 3:17-CV-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

1

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 submit this response to the “Partial Objection” of class members Norman Anthony 

Rogers, Samuel McDonald, and Brian Dumont (collectively, “Objectors”) following review of 

Defendants’ response thereto. 

On June 6, 2019, class members Norman Anthony Rogers, Samuel McDonald, and Brian 

Dumont filed a partial objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval. (Dkt. 96.) In it, the 

Objectors identified “one small defect,” but raised “no complaint with the overall settlement amount or 

any other aspect of the proposed settlement.” (Dkt. 96, at 1.) Specifically, the Objectors argued that 

“their union dues should be deducted from the back pay portion of their settlement payments” pursuant 

to their unions’ collective bargaining agreements with Defendant (“the CBAs”). (Id.)

In their response to the Objection, Defendants countered that (1) the settlement payments are not

subject to dues deductions under the CBAs and that, even so, (2) the Court is preempted by federal labor

law from resolving disputes over the interpretation of the CBAs. (Dkt. 99, at 1-2.) 

Plaintiffs contend that the Objection presents no basis for denial of preliminary approval of the 

Settlement Agreement. Both Objectors and Defendants agree that the dispute raised regarding union 

member dues arises exclusively from the terms of the CBAs between Defendants and the United 

Steelworkers Union (“USW” or “Union”), of which all members of the Class are members. Moreover, 

both Objectors and Defendants appear to further agree that a proper forum for the adjudication of the 

issue raised is arbitration. (Dkt. 96, at 5-6; Dkt. 99, at 2, 4, 12.) Indeed, the Objection does not aver that 

approval of the Settlement Agreement will directly impact any class member’s interests or rights, but 

rather, only those of the USW in not receiving the dues owed pursuant to the governing CBAs. 

While Plaintiffs maintain that the Court should grant their Motion for Preliminary Approval, they 

recognize that they and the members of the Class have a general job security interest that will be assisted 

by resolution of the dispute raised by the Objectors. While this interest is separate from the interests at

issue in this action, Plaintiffs believe that some assistance from the Court will serve both to expedite the 

approval process in the action as well as serve the interests of the parties, the putative class, and the nonparty union. To that end, Plaintiffs propose that the Court confirm and permit the following:

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 100 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 4
PLTFFS’ RESPS TO CLASS MEMBERS ROGERS, MCDONALD, & DUMONT’S PARTIAL OBJ TO MOT FOR 

PRELIM APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/ CASE NOS. 3:17-CV-00123-JST/17-CV-03850-JST

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

• An order confirming that the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, if granted, 

does not waive the rights of the Objectors or the Objectors’ union to pursue claims for 

dues deductions from the settlement payments in a separate forum; and

• An order staying the action for no longer than thirty (30) days from the date of this filing, 

June 18, 2019, to allow Defendants and the USW an opportunity to reach a resolution of 

their dispute. 

A declaration from the Court confirming that judicial approval of the class action settlement (if 

granted) would not waive the parties’ or the union’s rights to pursue claims for dues deductions in a 

separate forum. This would allow the settlement approval process to move forward unhindered by the 

negotiation and/or adjudication of the contractual dispute in a separate forum. This confirmation would

also help facilitate a resolution without infringing on the Union’s collectively bargained rights to seek 

dues deductions or Defendants’ rights under the governing CBAs in a separate forum. 

Plaintiffs further contend that a brief stay of the proceedings of no more than thirty (30) days to

allow Defendants and the USW to resolve their dispute prior to a decision on preliminary approval will 

assist in potentially reducing unnecessary delay later in the approval process while protecting the 

interests of the class members. See, e.g., Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., No. C06-3903 TEH, 2007 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8502, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2007) (granting a brief stay of less than two months 

pending “advanced settlement discussions” in a related class action, and noting that “Defendant will 

bear an extremely high burden of persuading the Court that an extension of the stay is warranted”); see 

also Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A stay should not be 

granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in 

relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.”). 

Plaintiffs, therefore, propose that the Court delay the issuance of its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Preliminary Approval by no longer than 30 days from today’s date, June 18, 2019.

DATED: June 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP

By: _ /s/ Randy Renick 

Randy Renick

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 100 Filed 06/18/19 Page 4 of 4