DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION [DKT 100]

57798772v.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 

U.S.SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

William J. Dritsas (SBN 97523) 

wdritsas@seyfarth.com 

560 Mission Street, 31st Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2930 

Telephone: (415) 397-2823 

Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

Timothy M. Rusche (SBN 230036) 

trusche@seyfarth.com 

601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: (213) 270-9600 

Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 

Attorneys for Defendants 

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY 

LLC and TESORO LOGISTICS GP, LLC 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Michael W. Kopp (SBN 206385) 

mkopp@seyfarth.com 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 

Sacramento, California 95814-4428 

Telephone: (916) 448-0159 

Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 

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. 3:17-cv-00123-JST

[Assigned to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar] 

CLASS ACTION 

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 [DKT 100] 

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-03850-JST 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 103 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 3
2

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION [DKT 100]

57798772v.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 

SUMMARY OF REPLY 

Tesoro agrees with Plaintiffs that the Partial Objection presents no basis for denial of preliminary 

approval of the Settlement Agreement and that the dispute raised regarding union member dues arises 

exclusively from the terms of the CBAs between Tesoro and the USW. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not dispute 

Tesoro’s characterization of the facts and the salient arguments. Accordingly, there is no need for the 

Court to go further and create novel procedures outside of the USW’s and Tesoro’s available rights and 

defenses to try to resolve an extraneous, potential dispute involving a non-party to the litigation (the 

USW). 

Despite agreement that the Partial Objection lacks merit, Plaintiffs propose a 30-day stay and a 

Court order confirming that preliminary approval would not waive any rights the Objectors or the USW 

may have to pursue claims for deductions from settlement payments in a separate forum. 

Tesoro disagrees with Plaintiffs’ proposed 30-day stay. As the Partial Objection lacks merit, it 

should be denied without any 30-day stay. Should a dispute arise between the USW and Tesoro, they 

would have the resources to address it consistent with established protocols and a stay is not necessary 

to facilitate that process. 

Tesoro, however, 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. 

ARGUMENT 

Plaintiffs agree with Tesoro’s position that the Partial Objection involves a labor dispute not 

subject to the Court’s jurisdiction and that the Objectors have not identified a reason to deny preliminary 

approval. Plaintiffs also do not disagree that (i) union dues allocation under the CBA is completely 

preempted by the LMRA; (ii) disputes regarding dues checkoff payments are preempted by the NLRB’s 

exclusive jurisdiction under the NLRA; (iii) the “convenience” concerns of three partial objectors should 

be discounted; and (iv) settlements with other refineries are irrelevant to the issue presented. 

The parties responses thus highlight that there is no rationale justifying why consideration of 

preliminary approval should be enmeshed with a labor dispute and that federal labor law preemption 

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 103 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 3
3

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION [DKT 100]

57798772v.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 

precludes the Court from resolving that dispute. Indeed, by involving itself in an extraneous labor 

dispute, this Court would only harm class members by delaying their receipt of settlement payments. 

If a labor dispute is ever raised by the USW with Tesoro over the issue of withholding union 

dues from settlement payments to employees, the USW and Tesoro can address that dispute themselves, 

including, if appropriate, through the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the applicable 

collective bargaining agreements, which procedures should be separate from this settlement process. 

Thus, rather than delaying settlement payments to individual class members, the settlement should move 

forward and any short “delay” in the USW’s recovery of a share of the settlement payments from Tesoro 

should be borne by the USW, as a third-party raising claims independent of this lawsuit, and not at the 

expense of class members or the parties who have endured years of litigation. 

Finally, while unnecessary, and not requested by Tesoro, if the Court were to grant a 30-day stay, 

it should issue only to provide the USW and Tesoro time to consider how to resolve any labor dispute. It 

should not require that any labor dispute be resolved before preliminary approval proceeds as that would 

unjustly interfere with the rights of the parties to this litigation. Any claims asserted by the USW would 

be a separate dispute that can be resolved independently, regardless of whether the settlement proceeds. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Tesoro respectfully requests that the Court deny the Partial Objection 

and grant Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval. 

DATED: July 2, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

By: /s/ Timothy M. Rusche 

William J. Dritsas 

Timothy M. Rusche 

Attorneys for Defendants 

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY 

LLC and TESORO LOGISTICS GP, LLC

Case 4:17-cv-00123-JST Document 103 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 3