Chetwood v. T-Mobile USA Inc

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJune 1, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-00458
StatusUnknown

This text of Chetwood v. T-Mobile USA Inc (Chetwood v. T-Mobile USA Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chetwood v. T-Mobile USA Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Opinion

1 HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 KRISTINA CHETWOOD and SANDRA ) 10 CASTELLON-GONZALEZ, individually, ) CASE NO. 11 and on behalf of others similarly situated, ) 2:19-cv-00458-RSL ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ v. ) UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 13 ) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF T-MOBILE USA, INC. ) CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION 14 ) SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF 15 Defendant. ) CLASS NOTICE, AND SETTING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING 16

18 ORDER 19 This matter has come before the Court on the unopposed motion by Plaintiffs Kristina 20 Chetwood, Sandra Castellon-Gonzalez, Paul Rose, Jairo Marquez, Samantha Stephens, Richard 21 Nedbalek, and Briana White (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and similarly situated 22 employees of Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) (together, the “parties”), for 23 preliminary Approval of the parties’ class and collective action Settlement Agreement pursuant to 24 Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C section 201, et seq. (Dkt. # 98).1 25

26 1 Plaintiffs’ motion to file an over-length brief for its unopposed motion for preliminary approval (Dkt. # 96) is GRANTED in the interest of providing plaintiffs sufficient space to adequately brief the motion’s merits. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 1 Plaintiffs, without opposition by Defendant, seek an Order (1) preliminarily certifying the 2 class and collective claims for settlement purposes only under the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure, Rule 23 (“Rule 23”), and 29 U.S.C, §§ 201, et seq.; (2) preliminarily approving the 4 parties’ Settlement; (3) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of, and as counsel 5 (“Class Counsel”) for, the Settlement Class Members; (4) approving the parties’ proposed form 6 for providing Notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class Members and the form of the Opt- 7 Out Request for those Settlement Class Members wishing to be excluded from the Settlement; and 8 (5) scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement and approval of the application of 9 Class Counsel and Plaintiffs for their requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. 10 The Court’s scrutiny of the proposed settlement is as rigorous at the preliminary approval 11 stage as at the final approval stage. See Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1036-37 (N.D. 12 Cal. 2016). Having considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the arguments of counsel, 13 and the law, the Court now enters this Order and FINDS, CONCLUDES, and ORDERS as follows: 14 1. All initial-capped terms contained herein, unless otherwise defined, shall have the same 15 definitions as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s 16 unopposed motion for preliminary approval. 17 2. The Court hereby conditionally certifies the Settlement Class, and conditionally finds 18 that, solely for the purposes of approving this Settlement and for no other purpose and with no 19 other effect on this litigation, the Settlement Class meets the requirements for certification under 20 Rule 23(a), (b), and (e). Accordingly, for purposes of approving this Settlement under Rule 23(a) 21 and (b)(3), and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Court finds, for the reasons explained in the unopposed 22 motion for preliminary approval: (a) the Settlement Class Members are ascertainable and so 23 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact 24 common to the Settlement Class Members; (c) certain claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical 25 of the claims of the Settlement Class Members; (d) the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will 26 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class Members; (e) questions of law ’ 1 and fact common to the Settlement Class Members predominate over individual questions; and (f) 2 a class action is superior to the other available methods for an efficient resolution of this 3 controversy in the context of settlement. 4 3. The Court therefore conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only and pursuant 5 to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the 6 following Settlement Class: 7 All current and former employees who worked at a Legacy T-Mobile call center in 8 the United States in a position that contains the terms Associate Expert, Expert, Senior Expert, CSR 1, CSR 2, or CSR 3, and who fall within one or both of the 9 following two categories: (a) previously received and timely returned a signed “Consent to Join Lawsuit” form indicating their intent to join the FLSA Collective; 10 and/or (b) worked in such a position between April 23, 2017, and [date preliminary approval motion is granted] in Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, or 11 Washington State. 12 4. The Court has considered the factors set forth in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 13 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998), including the strength of the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ First 14 Amended Complaint; the strength of Defendant’s defenses to those claims; the risk, expense, 15 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of obtaining and/or maintaining class 16 and collective action status throughout the litigation; the extent of discovery completed and stage 17 of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence and/or absence of a 18 governmental participant; and the amount offered in settlement of the claims. Based on these 19 considerations, and for the reasons explained in the unopposed motion for preliminary approval, 20 the Court finds that, for purposes of preliminary approval, the proposed Settlement Agreement is 21 fair on its face. The Court therefore finds, on a preliminary basis, that the proposed terms of the 22 Settlement Agreement set forth in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary 23 approval are reasonable, and grants preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement. 24 5. The Court also finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement is fair and reasonable 25 to the Settlement Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation 26 relating to class and collective action certification, liability, and damages issues, and potential appeals of rulings. The Court further finds that significant investigation, research, litigation, and ’ 1 formal and informal discovery have been conducted such that counsel for the parties are able to 2 reasonably evaluate their respective positions. The Court further finds that settlement at this time 3 will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of 4 the litigation. 5 6. Based on a review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the 6 Settlement Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations conducted after Class Counsel had 7 adequately investigated the claims and become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the 8 claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the Court’s 9 conclusion that the proposed settlement is non-collusive.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
193 F. Supp. 3d 1030 (N.D. California, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chetwood v. T-Mobile USA Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chetwood-v-t-mobile-usa-inc-wawd-2021.