1 RANDY RENICK (SBN 179652) (Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com) 2 CORNELIA DAI (SBN 207435) (Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com) 3 ELIZABETH SONG (SBN 326616) (Email: esong@hadsellstormer.com) 4 HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 5 Pasadena, California 91103-3645 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 6 Fax: (626) 577-7079
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS 8 [Additional Counsel on next page] 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-07923-JCS individually and on behalf of all similarly 14 situated current and former employees, [REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER 15 GRANTING PRELIMINARY Plaintiffs, APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 16 AGREEMENT v. 17 Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero, CORTEVA, INC., E.I. DU PONT DE Chief Magistrate Judge 18 NEMOURS & COMPANY, DOW
AGROSCIENCES LLC, THE DOW 19 CHEMICAL CO., DOWDUPONT, INC. Complaint Filed: 12/03/2019 Trial Date: Not set n/k/a DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., DOW 20 INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Final Approval Hearing: January 7, 2022 21 Time: 9:30 AM Defendants. Via Zoom Webinar1 22
26 27 1 The Court’s modifications to the parties’ proposed order are indicated in bold. 28 1
3 JAY SMITH (SBN 166105) 4 (Email: js@gslaw.org) JOSHUA F. YOUNG (SBN 232995) 5 (Email: jyoung@gslaw.org) GILBERT & SACKMAN 6 A LAW CORPORATION 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 7 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (323) 938-3000 8 Fax: (323) 937-9139
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 On December 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants in Jason Craig et al., 3 v. Corteva, Inc., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Dow Agrosciences LLC, The Dow Chemical 4 Co., DowDupont, Inc. n/k/a Dupont De Nemours, Inc., Dow Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-07923-JCS, in the 5 United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Complaint” in the “Class 6 Action”). The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to authorize and permit 7 duty-free rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) the California Private Attorneys General 8 Act; and (4) unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, 9 attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief for the time period from 10 December 3, 2015 to the present. 11 Following an extensive investigation and arm’s-length and good-faith negotiations during a 12 mediation with Steve Pearl on August 17, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”) 13 reached a tentative settlement agreement, which was subsequently reduced to writing and has been 14 filed with this Court. 15 Plaintiffs move for this Court to: 16 1. Preliminarily approve the class action settlement for $3,800,000; 17 2. Preliminarily and conditionally certify the class for purposes of settlement; 18 3. Preliminarily appoint Plaintiffs Jason Craig and Michael Ross as class representatives 19 for purposes of settlement; 20 4. Preliminarily appoint Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, A 21 Law Corporation, as class counsel for purposes of settlement; 22 5. Approve as to form and content the Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement; 23 6. Direct that the Notice of Class Action Settlement be mailed to the Settlement Class 24 members; and 25 7. Schedule a fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed settlement should 26 be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class. 27 That motion came on regularly for hearing before this Court on April 23, 2021. The Court 28 1 ordered the parties to make certain modifications to the Settlement papers. 2 The Court, having received and fully considered Plaintiffs’ notice, motion and memorandum of 3 points and authorities, the Settlement, as amended, the proposed Settlement Documents, which 4 includes the revised Notice of Class Action Settlement and exhibits thereto, and the oral argument 5 presented to the Court, and in recognition of the Court’s duty to make a preliminary determination as to 6 the reasonableness of any proposed class-action settlement and to conduct a fairness hearing as to the 7 good faith, fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of any proposed settlement, HEREBY ORDERS and 8 MAKES DETERMINATIONS as follows: 9 1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Joint 10 Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release, as amended (hereinafter “Stipulation” or 11 “Settlement”) executed by the Parties and filed with this Court. 12 2. The Court finds that certification of the following class for purposes of settlement is 13 appropriate: All current and former hourly employees of Defendants who worked a 12-hour rotating 14 shift at the chemical manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, California, for the period December 3, 2015 15 through preliminary approval of the Settlement. 16 3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Jason Craig and Michael Ross as class representatives for 17 purposes of settlement. 18 4. The Court appoints Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, A Law 19 Corporation, as class counsel for purposes of settlement. 20 5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval of a class action 21 settlement. Approval is a two-step process under Rule 23(e). “[T]he Court first determines whether a 22 proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is given to class 23 members, whether final approval is warranted.” Noll v. eBay, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 593, 602 (N.D. Cal. 24 2015)(internal citations omitted); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.632 (courts 25 “must make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the 26 settlement terms and must direct the preparation of notice of the certification, proposed settlement, and 27 date of the final fairness hearing.”). 28 1 Preliminary approval of a settlement is appropriate when the settlement: (1) falls within the 2 range of possible approval; (2) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive 3 negotiations; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments 4 of the class; and (4) has no obvious deficiencies. In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 5 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Closer scrutiny is reserved for the final approval hearing.” Harris v. 6 Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48878, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 7 2011). 8 6. The Court has reviewed the Settlement and the proposed Settlement Documents, which 9 were separately lodged and are incorporated herein by reference. The Court finds on a preliminary 10 basis that the Settlement appears to be within the range of reasonableness of a settlement which could 11 ultimately be given final approval by this Court. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the 12 settlement amount is fair and reasonable to all potential class members when balanced against the 13 probable outcome of further litigation relating to liability and damages issues. Plaintiffs have asserted 14 violations of California labor and unfair competition laws. Defendant agrees to a class settlement in 15 the interest of compromising and resolving the Class Action. The Parties recognize the risk involved in 16 prosecuting and defending the Class Action including significant delay, defenses asserted by 17 Defendants, and further potential appellate issues. 18 7. It further appears that the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of 19 intensive, serious and non-collusive arm’s-length negotiations.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 RANDY RENICK (SBN 179652) (Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com) 2 CORNELIA DAI (SBN 207435) (Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com) 3 ELIZABETH SONG (SBN 326616) (Email: esong@hadsellstormer.com) 4 HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 5 Pasadena, California 91103-3645 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 6 Fax: (626) 577-7079
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS 8 [Additional Counsel on next page] 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-07923-JCS individually and on behalf of all similarly 14 situated current and former employees, [REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER 15 GRANTING PRELIMINARY Plaintiffs, APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 16 AGREEMENT v. 17 Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero, CORTEVA, INC., E.I. DU PONT DE Chief Magistrate Judge 18 NEMOURS & COMPANY, DOW
AGROSCIENCES LLC, THE DOW 19 CHEMICAL CO., DOWDUPONT, INC. Complaint Filed: 12/03/2019 Trial Date: Not set n/k/a DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., DOW 20 INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Final Approval Hearing: January 7, 2022 21 Time: 9:30 AM Defendants. Via Zoom Webinar1 22
26 27 1 The Court’s modifications to the parties’ proposed order are indicated in bold. 28 1
3 JAY SMITH (SBN 166105) 4 (Email: js@gslaw.org) JOSHUA F. YOUNG (SBN 232995) 5 (Email: jyoung@gslaw.org) GILBERT & SACKMAN 6 A LAW CORPORATION 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 7 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (323) 938-3000 8 Fax: (323) 937-9139
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JASON CRAIG and MICHAEL ROSS 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 On December 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants in Jason Craig et al., 3 v. Corteva, Inc., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Dow Agrosciences LLC, The Dow Chemical 4 Co., DowDupont, Inc. n/k/a Dupont De Nemours, Inc., Dow Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-07923-JCS, in the 5 United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Complaint” in the “Class 6 Action”). The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to authorize and permit 7 duty-free rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) the California Private Attorneys General 8 Act; and (4) unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, 9 attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief for the time period from 10 December 3, 2015 to the present. 11 Following an extensive investigation and arm’s-length and good-faith negotiations during a 12 mediation with Steve Pearl on August 17, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”) 13 reached a tentative settlement agreement, which was subsequently reduced to writing and has been 14 filed with this Court. 15 Plaintiffs move for this Court to: 16 1. Preliminarily approve the class action settlement for $3,800,000; 17 2. Preliminarily and conditionally certify the class for purposes of settlement; 18 3. Preliminarily appoint Plaintiffs Jason Craig and Michael Ross as class representatives 19 for purposes of settlement; 20 4. Preliminarily appoint Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, A 21 Law Corporation, as class counsel for purposes of settlement; 22 5. Approve as to form and content the Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement; 23 6. Direct that the Notice of Class Action Settlement be mailed to the Settlement Class 24 members; and 25 7. Schedule a fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed settlement should 26 be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class. 27 That motion came on regularly for hearing before this Court on April 23, 2021. The Court 28 1 ordered the parties to make certain modifications to the Settlement papers. 2 The Court, having received and fully considered Plaintiffs’ notice, motion and memorandum of 3 points and authorities, the Settlement, as amended, the proposed Settlement Documents, which 4 includes the revised Notice of Class Action Settlement and exhibits thereto, and the oral argument 5 presented to the Court, and in recognition of the Court’s duty to make a preliminary determination as to 6 the reasonableness of any proposed class-action settlement and to conduct a fairness hearing as to the 7 good faith, fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of any proposed settlement, HEREBY ORDERS and 8 MAKES DETERMINATIONS as follows: 9 1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Joint 10 Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release, as amended (hereinafter “Stipulation” or 11 “Settlement”) executed by the Parties and filed with this Court. 12 2. The Court finds that certification of the following class for purposes of settlement is 13 appropriate: All current and former hourly employees of Defendants who worked a 12-hour rotating 14 shift at the chemical manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, California, for the period December 3, 2015 15 through preliminary approval of the Settlement. 16 3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Jason Craig and Michael Ross as class representatives for 17 purposes of settlement. 18 4. The Court appoints Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, A Law 19 Corporation, as class counsel for purposes of settlement. 20 5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval of a class action 21 settlement. Approval is a two-step process under Rule 23(e). “[T]he Court first determines whether a 22 proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is given to class 23 members, whether final approval is warranted.” Noll v. eBay, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 593, 602 (N.D. Cal. 24 2015)(internal citations omitted); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.632 (courts 25 “must make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the 26 settlement terms and must direct the preparation of notice of the certification, proposed settlement, and 27 date of the final fairness hearing.”). 28 1 Preliminary approval of a settlement is appropriate when the settlement: (1) falls within the 2 range of possible approval; (2) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive 3 negotiations; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments 4 of the class; and (4) has no obvious deficiencies. In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 5 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Closer scrutiny is reserved for the final approval hearing.” Harris v. 6 Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48878, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 7 2011). 8 6. The Court has reviewed the Settlement and the proposed Settlement Documents, which 9 were separately lodged and are incorporated herein by reference. The Court finds on a preliminary 10 basis that the Settlement appears to be within the range of reasonableness of a settlement which could 11 ultimately be given final approval by this Court. It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the 12 settlement amount is fair and reasonable to all potential class members when balanced against the 13 probable outcome of further litigation relating to liability and damages issues. Plaintiffs have asserted 14 violations of California labor and unfair competition laws. Defendant agrees to a class settlement in 15 the interest of compromising and resolving the Class Action. The Parties recognize the risk involved in 16 prosecuting and defending the Class Action including significant delay, defenses asserted by 17 Defendants, and further potential appellate issues. 18 7. It further appears that the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of 19 intensive, serious and non-collusive arm’s-length negotiations. It further appears that extensive 20 investigation and research has been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to 21 reasonably evaluate their respective positions. Class Counsel have significant experience in wage and 22 hour class actions. The proposed Settlement was reached through extensive negotiations and with the 23 involvement of an experienced mediator, Steve Pearl. 24 8. It further appears that the proposed Settlement does not improperly grant preferential 25 treatment to class representatives and has no obvious deficiencies. 26 9. In connection with its preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Court appoints CAC 27 Services Group, LLC of Eden Prairie Minnesota, to act as the Settlement Administrator who will 28 1 administer the Settlement according to the terms of the Stipulation, as approved by this Court. 2 APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 3 10. Rule 23(e) provides that a court “must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class 4 members who would be bound by” a proposed class action settlement. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e)(1). This 5 Court finds the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, 6 fairly and adequately advises the potential class members of the terms of the proposed Settlement, as 7 well as the right of class members to opt out of the class, to challenge the number of Workweeks 8 reported by Defendants from their records, to file documentation in objection to the proposed 9 Settlement, and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing to be conducted at the date set forth below. 10 The Court further finds that Notice of Class Action Settlement and proposed distribution of such notice 11 by first-class mail to each identified class member at his or her last known address comports with all 12 constitutional requirements, including those of due process. 13 11. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court hereby approves the proposed Notice of 14 Class Action Settlement and orders the Settlement Administrator to distribute the Settlement 15 Documents, in the manner and pursuant to the procedures described in the Settlement. 16 12. If more than five percent (5%) of the Settlement Class submits timely and valid requests 17 for exclusion pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Notice of Class Action Settlement, this entire 18 Settlement Agreement shall become voidable and unenforceable as to Plaintiffs and Defendants, at 19 Defendants’ sole discretion. Defendants may exercise such option by giving notice, in writing, to 20 Class Counsel and to the Court not more than fourteen (14) calendar days following the Opt-Out 21 deadline. 22 FINAL APPROVAL/FAIRNESS HEARING AND SCHEDULE 23 13. The Court hereby grants the Plaintiffs’ motion to set a fairness hearing for final approval 24 of the Settlement (“Final Approval/Fairness Hearing”) and orders the following schedule of dates for 25 further proceedings: 26 a. Mailing of Settlement Documents to the class shall be completed on or before October 27 4, 2021; 28 ] b. Posting of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on the Settlement 2 Administrator’s website, and filing that motion in the Court’s ECF docket, 35 days 3 prior to the Notice Response Deadline; and 4 c. The deadline for class members to file and submit written objections and requests for 5 exclusion shall be December 3, 2021. The deadline for class members to file a dispute 6 of workweeks shall be November 3, 2021. 7 14. The Final Approval/Fairness Hearing will be held on January 7, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. 8 || Class Members may attend the hearing via Zoom. Instructions are provided by the Court at: 9 || https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/spero-joseph-c-jes/. Members of the class may appear and 10 || present objections at the Final Approval/Fairness Hearing in person or by counsel. 1] 15. Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Final Approval two weeks prior to the hearing. 12 16. The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or to continue the Final 13 || Approval/Fairness Hearing without further notice to class members, except that notice of a continuance 14 || shall be provided to all class members who submit a proper objection. 15 17. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, if for any reason the Court does not grant final 16 || approval of the Settlement, or the Settlement otherwise does not become effective in accordance with 17 || the terms of the Stipulation, this Order shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated, and the 18 || Parties shall revert to their respective positions as of before entering into the Stipulation and all 19 || evidence and proceedings held in connection with the Settlement shall be without prejudice to the 20 quo ante rights of the Parties to the Class Action as more specifically set forth in the Settlement. 21 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 24 || DATED: August 4, 2021 ZZ CZ H@N. JOSEPH C. SPERO 25 ief Magistrate Judge 26 27 28
[REVISED PROPOSED] ORNER GRANTING PRET IMINARY APPROVAT OF SEBETTT □□□□□