Exhibit A

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:3002
EXHIBIT A 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AMY WIGINTON, KRISTINE MORAN, 

NORMA PLANK FETHLER, as Successor in 

Interest to Dondi Plank, ANDREA COREY 

and OLIVIA KNAPP, individually and on 

behalf of all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 02 CV 6832 

Judge Wayne R. Andersen 

Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman 

CORRECTED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

WHEREAS, this Court granted Preliminary Approval to the Parties’ Settlement 

Agreement on October 4, 2007, and the Parties subsequently filed a Motion for Entry of a 

Corrected Preliminary Approval Order on October 24, 2007, this Order grants the corrections 

below nunc pro tunc and they shall deemed effective as of October 4, 2007; 

WHEREAS, this matter has come before the Court pursuant to the Parties’ Joint Motion 

for Certification of a Settlement Class Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, and 

Approval of Notice Plan (the “Motion”); 

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned action have jointly moved the Court for 

certification of a settlement class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure; 

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned action have jointly moved for preliminary 

approval of a Consent Decree pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3003
EXHIBIT A 3 

and for permission to disseminate Preliminary Notice to absent Class Members of the Consent 

Decree, and good cause having been shown, 

WHEREAS, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

Litigation and over all parties to this Litigation, including all Settlement Class Members for 

purposes of settlement, and that venue is proper in this district; and 

WHEREAS, this Court has conducted a preliminary approval hearing on October 4, 2007 

and is otherwise fully advised in the premises; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

A. Certification of Settlement Class, and Appointment of Class Representatives, Class 

Counsel, Lead Class Counsel, and Settlement Administrator

1. The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed nationwide Settlement Class 

meets all the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). 

a. Numerosity: The Settlement Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of 

all Class Members into one suit would be impracticable; 

b. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact with regard to alleged 

sexual harassment in violation of Title VII exist for the Settlement Class. 

These issues are central to this case and are sufficient to establish 

commonality. 

c. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Settlement Class. 

d. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs’ interests vis-à-vis the settlement of 

The Litigation do not conflict with absent members of the Settlement 

Class and are co-extensive with them. Additionally, the Court recognizes 

the experience of Class Counsel and finds that the requirement of adequate 

representation of the Settlement Class has been fully met. 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3004
EXHIBIT A 4 

e. Rule 23(b)(2): Plaintiffs allege that CBRE acted in a manner that is 

applicable to the Class, making the equitable relief afforded by the 

Settlement Agreement appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). 

f. Rule 23(b)(3):

i. Predominance of Common Issues: The issues raised by Plaintiffs’ 

common allegations predominate over any individual questions in 

the context of the settlement of The Litigation favoring class 

treatment at this juncture. 

ii. Superiority of the Class Action Mechanism: the class action 

mechanism is ideally suited for treatment of the settlement of this 

matter, as it promotes efficiency and uniformity of judgment. 

2. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) and (c), this Court 

hereby certifies the following Settlement Class: 

All female employees who were or have been employed by CBRE at any time during 

the period from January 1, 1999 to October 4, 2007. 

3. The Court preliminarily appoints the following individuals as class 

representatives for purposes of the certification of the Settlement Class: Amy Wiginton, Kristine 

Moran, Norma Plank Fethler, as Successor in Interest to Dondi Plank, Andrea Scott f/k/a/ 

Andrea Corey, and Olivia Knapp. 

4. The Court preliminarily finds that the following counsel fairly and adequately 

represent the interests of the putative Class and hereby appoints the following law firms as Class 

Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g): Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 

LLP; Gustafson Gluek PLLC; and Favre Law Offices LLC. Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP and 

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP are hereby designated as Lead Class Counsel. The Court 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:3005
EXHIBIT A 5 

further confirms the appointment of Rust Consulting to act as the Settlement Administrator, 

whose tasks including implementing and carrying out the Notice Plan.

B. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement 

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the terms of the Consent Decree dated 

October 4, 2007, including all Exhibits thereto, attached to the Motion, are hereby preliminarily 

approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below. 

All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Consent Decree, and all 

exhibits referenced herein have been attached to the Consent Decree. 

6. The Court finds that the Consent Decree has been reached as a result of intensive, 

serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations. The Court finds that counsel for the Parties 

are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. The Court also finds that settlement at 

this time will avoid additional substantial costs, as well as the uncertainty and risks that would be 

presented to the parties by the further litigation of the claims covered by the Consent Decree. 

The Court has reviewed the relief granted as part of the Consent Decree and recognizes the 

significant value to the Settlement Class of both the equitable and the monetary relief.

C. Approval of Notice

7. The Court finds that direct notice to Class members is feasible through mailings 

to their last known addresses as maintained by CB Richard Ellis, Inc. as of the date of this Order. 

The Court further finds that the Notice Plan set forth in the Consent Decree (Section XVI), 

which includes mailed notice and a requirement that the Claims Administrator trace the 

addresses of any Class Members whose Notices are returned as undeliverable at their last-known 

address, meets the requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c) and (e), is the best 

notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes sufficient notice to all persons 

entitled to notice. 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:3006
EXHIBIT A 6 

8. The Court further finds that the Notice itself is appropriate, and complies with 

Rules 23(b)(2), 23(c)(2)(B), and 23(e) because it describes in plain language the nature of the 

action, the definition of the class certified, the class claims/issues/defenses, that a class member 

may enter an appearance through counsel if the member desires, that the Court will exclude from 

the class any member requesting exclusion, and the binding effect of a class judgment on 

Settlement Class Members. 

9. Accordingly, the Court approves the Notice Plan in all respects, and the Parties 

are directed immediately to disseminate Notice in substantial conformity with the form of Notice 

annexed thereto as Exhibit B. 

D. Fairness Hearing

10. The Court directs that a hearing be scheduled for January 9, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., on 

final settlement approval (the "Fairness Hearing") before this Court, at the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, to consider, 

inter alia, the following (a) whether the Class should be certified, for settlement purposes only; 

and (b) the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement. 

11. Objectors to the Proposed Settlement shall attend and be heard at the Fairness 

Hearing, however, no objector shall be heard and no papers or briefs submitted will be accepted 

or considered by the Court unless on or before January 2, 2008, any such objector (1) has filed, 

and the Clerk of the Court has received, in writing a notice of any such objector's intention to 

appear personally, or, if such objector intends to appear by counsel, such counsel files a notice of 

appearance, (2) has submitted a written statement providing her name, address and telephone 

number; noting the approximate dates and location of employment with CBRE; and describing in 

full the basis for such objector's opposition, and attaches any supporting documentation and a list 

of any and all witnesses or experts whom such objector shall present to the Court, and (3) has 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:3007
EXHIBIT A 7 

served, on or before January 2, 2008, copies of such notice(s), statement(s), documentation, and 

list(s) together with copies of any other papers or brief(s) that objector files with the Court or 

wishes the Court to consider at the Fairness Hearing, upon: (i) Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens 

Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 820 North Blvd., Suite B, Oak Park, Illinois 60301, Class Counsel, 

(ii) Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300, Chicago, 

Illinois 60603, Class Counsel, and (iii) Brenda H. Feis, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 131 South Dearborn 

St., Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60603-5577, Counsel for CB Richard Ellis, Inc. 

E. Request For Exclusion From the Class

12. The Court further directs that any putative Class member wishing to exclude 

herself from the proposed Class for purposes of recovering individual monetary relief must 

complete and submit a Request for Exclusion form, a copy of which is attached to the Consent 

Decree as Exhibit C, to the Claims Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., addressed to: Wiginton, 

et al. v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Claims Administrator, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 9388, 

Minneapolis, MN 55440-9388, with a postmark (no metered postmarks) on or before January 2, 

2008. Request for Exclusion forms are available upon request from Rust Consulting at the above 

address or at (888) 764-8860. 

13. Valid class opt-outs shall not be bound by this Consent Decree or the Final Order 

and Judgment, except as to the equitable relief provisions of the Consent Decree. 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: October __, 2007 

Wayne R. Andersen 

United States District Judge 

Case: 1:02-cv-06832 Document #: 321-3 Filed: 10/24/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:3008