1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 CODY MEEK, et al. Case No.: 3:17-cv-01012-JD 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 11 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED v. SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE TO 12 CLASS, AND SETTING FINAL SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST APPROVAL HEARING 13 AIRLINES, INC.,
14 Defendants. 15
16 17 In this employment class action dispute, named plaintiffs Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and 18 Coryell Ross have applied for an order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, in accordance with the parties’ settlement 20 agreement. Dkt. No. 193. Defendants SkyWest Airlines, Inc., and SkyWest, Inc. have filed a 21 statement of non-opposition. Dkt. No. 194. Preliminary approval is granted, and the Court has used 22 the proposed order presented by the parties as revised pursuant to the Court’s practices and 23 conclusions. 24 I. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires the Court to examine the proposed settlement 26 and make a preliminary finding of fairness. A class action settlement may be approved only if the 27 Court finds that it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C). The Court is to 28 consider whether “(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the 1 class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is 2 adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness 3 of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class- 4 member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of 5 payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal 6 treats class members equitably relative to each other.” Preliminary approval of a class settlement is 7 appropriate when the proposed settlement “appears to be the product of serious, informed, 8 noncollusive negotiations,” “has no obvious deficiencies,” “does not improperly grant preferential 9 treatment to class representatives or segments of the class,” and “falls with the range of possible 10 approval.” Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 12-cv-05527-JD, 2014 WL 5826335, at *3 (N.D. 11 Cal. Nov. 10, 2014) (citations omitted). 12 A. Class Definition, Representatives, and Counsel 13 The Court previously certified a number of classes of individuals currently or formerly 14 employed by defendants as Frontline Employees. Dkt. No. 167 at 14-15. The parties have proposed 15 this settlement class: “All persons employed by Defendants based in California as non-exempt 16 Frontline Employees at any time from February 27, 2013, through the date of the Court’s order 17 preliminarily approving this Settlement. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Counsel for 18 the Parties and the Judges presiding over the Action and members of their families; (2) the 19 Defendants and their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and their current or 20 former officers and directors; (3) Settlement Class Members who properly execute and submit an 21 Opt-Out Form prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any 22 such excluded persons.” Consistent with its findings in the class certification order, Dkt. No. 167, 23 the Court finds that the prerequisites for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are likely to be found to be satisfied for the settlement class. 25 Similarly, nothing has changed to require the Court to revisit its analysis of the adequacy of 26 the class representatives and class counsel. For purposes of settlement, the Court approves on a 27 preliminary basis the appointment of Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and Coryell Ross as class 28 1 representatives, and Milberg Grossman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Simmons Hanly Conroy 2 LLC, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as class counsel. 3 B. Arm’s Length Negotiations 4 The Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement was the product of serious, informed and 5 noncollusive negotiations. See Dkt. No. 193 at 5-6. 6 C. Sufficiency of Relief to the Class 7 The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement agreement appears to provide 8 sufficient relief to the class. The class settlement amount is $4.195 million, and the average payment 9 per eligible settlement class member is expected to be between $1,320 to $2,150 per person. Dkt. 10 No. 193 at 7. Class members will not be required to file a claim form to receive payment. Id. at 6. 11 On the whole, the motion papers sufficiently describe the risks of continued litigation and why this 12 settlement amount provides a favorable recovery to the settlement class. Id. at 12-16. 13 D. Scope of Release and Opt-Out Period 14 The proposed release is appropriately limited to claims “arising from the facts pleaded in the 15 Complaint, including any violation of common law, California law and/or federal law which was or 16 could have been raised in Plaintiffs’ complaint based on the facts pleaded.” Dkt. No. 193-1, Ex. 1 17 (Settlement Agreement) at 5 (¶ 13(h)). 18 The Settlement Agreement proposes a 45-day opt-out period. Id. at 8 (¶ 13(v)). While this 19 is sufficient, the Court will provide a slightly longer period as detailed below. 20 E. Notice and Claim Form Issues 21 The parties no longer propose a password-protected settlement website, and instead propose 22 a website that will be open and accessible to the public. In addition, the parties have proposed notice 23 by U.S. mail, email, text message, and automated call, among other things. Dkt. No. 193 at 21-22. 24 A claim form is not required; class members will simply be mailed checks. Id. at 6-7. The Court 25 finds that the proposed forms of notice together constitute the best practicable notice to individual 26 class members under the circumstances of this case. 27 28 1 CPT Group is appointed as claims administrator and is directed to administer the notice 2 procedure and the processing of claims consistent with the Settlement Agreement, under the 3 supervision of the parties. 4 The Court (a) approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice Packet containing the 5 Class Notice and Opt-Out Form; (b) approves the methods of mailing the Notice Packet via U.S. 6 Mail supplemented by email, text, and voicemail notice for Settlement Class Members; and 7 (c) approves the establishment of a website for Settlement Class Members to obtain and review case- 8 related documents. The parties may by agreement revise and update the notices for accuracy and 9 clarity, and adjust the layout for efficient hard copy and electronic presentation and mailing. 10 Preliminary approval is consequently granted, while the issue of final approval is reserved. 11 II.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 CODY MEEK, et al. Case No.: 3:17-cv-01012-JD 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 11 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED v. SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE TO 12 CLASS, AND SETTING FINAL SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST APPROVAL HEARING 13 AIRLINES, INC.,
14 Defendants. 15
16 17 In this employment class action dispute, named plaintiffs Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and 18 Coryell Ross have applied for an order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, in accordance with the parties’ settlement 20 agreement. Dkt. No. 193. Defendants SkyWest Airlines, Inc., and SkyWest, Inc. have filed a 21 statement of non-opposition. Dkt. No. 194. Preliminary approval is granted, and the Court has used 22 the proposed order presented by the parties as revised pursuant to the Court’s practices and 23 conclusions. 24 I. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires the Court to examine the proposed settlement 26 and make a preliminary finding of fairness. A class action settlement may be approved only if the 27 Court finds that it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C). The Court is to 28 consider whether “(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the 1 class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is 2 adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness 3 of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class- 4 member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of 5 payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal 6 treats class members equitably relative to each other.” Preliminary approval of a class settlement is 7 appropriate when the proposed settlement “appears to be the product of serious, informed, 8 noncollusive negotiations,” “has no obvious deficiencies,” “does not improperly grant preferential 9 treatment to class representatives or segments of the class,” and “falls with the range of possible 10 approval.” Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 12-cv-05527-JD, 2014 WL 5826335, at *3 (N.D. 11 Cal. Nov. 10, 2014) (citations omitted). 12 A. Class Definition, Representatives, and Counsel 13 The Court previously certified a number of classes of individuals currently or formerly 14 employed by defendants as Frontline Employees. Dkt. No. 167 at 14-15. The parties have proposed 15 this settlement class: “All persons employed by Defendants based in California as non-exempt 16 Frontline Employees at any time from February 27, 2013, through the date of the Court’s order 17 preliminarily approving this Settlement. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Counsel for 18 the Parties and the Judges presiding over the Action and members of their families; (2) the 19 Defendants and their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and their current or 20 former officers and directors; (3) Settlement Class Members who properly execute and submit an 21 Opt-Out Form prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any 22 such excluded persons.” Consistent with its findings in the class certification order, Dkt. No. 167, 23 the Court finds that the prerequisites for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are likely to be found to be satisfied for the settlement class. 25 Similarly, nothing has changed to require the Court to revisit its analysis of the adequacy of 26 the class representatives and class counsel. For purposes of settlement, the Court approves on a 27 preliminary basis the appointment of Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and Coryell Ross as class 28 1 representatives, and Milberg Grossman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Simmons Hanly Conroy 2 LLC, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as class counsel. 3 B. Arm’s Length Negotiations 4 The Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement was the product of serious, informed and 5 noncollusive negotiations. See Dkt. No. 193 at 5-6. 6 C. Sufficiency of Relief to the Class 7 The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement agreement appears to provide 8 sufficient relief to the class. The class settlement amount is $4.195 million, and the average payment 9 per eligible settlement class member is expected to be between $1,320 to $2,150 per person. Dkt. 10 No. 193 at 7. Class members will not be required to file a claim form to receive payment. Id. at 6. 11 On the whole, the motion papers sufficiently describe the risks of continued litigation and why this 12 settlement amount provides a favorable recovery to the settlement class. Id. at 12-16. 13 D. Scope of Release and Opt-Out Period 14 The proposed release is appropriately limited to claims “arising from the facts pleaded in the 15 Complaint, including any violation of common law, California law and/or federal law which was or 16 could have been raised in Plaintiffs’ complaint based on the facts pleaded.” Dkt. No. 193-1, Ex. 1 17 (Settlement Agreement) at 5 (¶ 13(h)). 18 The Settlement Agreement proposes a 45-day opt-out period. Id. at 8 (¶ 13(v)). While this 19 is sufficient, the Court will provide a slightly longer period as detailed below. 20 E. Notice and Claim Form Issues 21 The parties no longer propose a password-protected settlement website, and instead propose 22 a website that will be open and accessible to the public. In addition, the parties have proposed notice 23 by U.S. mail, email, text message, and automated call, among other things. Dkt. No. 193 at 21-22. 24 A claim form is not required; class members will simply be mailed checks. Id. at 6-7. The Court 25 finds that the proposed forms of notice together constitute the best practicable notice to individual 26 class members under the circumstances of this case. 27 28 1 CPT Group is appointed as claims administrator and is directed to administer the notice 2 procedure and the processing of claims consistent with the Settlement Agreement, under the 3 supervision of the parties. 4 The Court (a) approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice Packet containing the 5 Class Notice and Opt-Out Form; (b) approves the methods of mailing the Notice Packet via U.S. 6 Mail supplemented by email, text, and voicemail notice for Settlement Class Members; and 7 (c) approves the establishment of a website for Settlement Class Members to obtain and review case- 8 related documents. The parties may by agreement revise and update the notices for accuracy and 9 clarity, and adjust the layout for efficient hard copy and electronic presentation and mailing. 10 Preliminary approval is consequently granted, while the issue of final approval is reserved. 11 II. SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS FOR FINAL APPROVAL 12 The Court sets the following schedule: 13 Event Deadline / Date 14 SkyWest to provide class list and hours of work data to October 20, 2022 claims administrator and class counsel 15 Claims administrator to issue class notice and opt-out November 7, 2022 16 forms Last day class counsel to file motion for attorney’s fees November 28, 2022 17 and costs, and for any incentive awards for class representatives 18 Objection / opt-out deadline January 6, 2023 19 Last day to file motion for final approval of class January 26, 2023 settlement 20 Final approval hearing February 23, 2023, at 21 10:00 a.m. 22 1. Class List. Defendants will provide to the claims administrator and class counsel by 23 October 20, 2022, a list generated by the defendants containing the last known name, email (if 24 available), and physical mailing address, along with the total number of hours worked in a class 25 position, for the settlement class members. The claims administrator and class counsel are directed 26 to maintain the personally identifiable information that comprises the Class List securely and 27 confidentially and to use the Class List solely for purposes of effecting the settlement. 28 1 2. Stay of the Action. Pending the final approval hearing, all proceedings in the action, 2 other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the settlement 3 and this order, are stayed. 4 3. Notice Date. By November 7, 2022, the claims administrator will cause a copy of the 5 Notice Packet to be mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to settlement class 6 members, as well as emailed for those class members for whom email addresses are available. 7 Contemporaneously with the mailing, the settlement administrator will post copies of the Settlement 8 Agreement, Class Notice and Opt-Out Forms to the settlement website, in forms available for 9 download. 10 4. Exclusion from Class. Any person falling within the definition of the class may, upon 11 request, be excluded from the class. Any person who wishes to request exclusion must submit an 12 Opt-Out Form. The written request for exclusion must contain all of the information requested on 13 the Opt-Out Form, and be personally signed. The Opt-Out Form must be sent by mail to the claims 14 administrator and must be timely postmarked by the opt-out deadline, except that the claims 15 administrator may, upon consultation with counsel for all parties and for good cause, extend the due 16 date for mailing the Opt-Out Form. Any settlement class member who requests exclusion (opts out) 17 of the Settlement Agreement will not be entitled to any Settlement Award and will not be bound by 18 the Settlement Agreement or have any right to object, appeal, or comment. 19 5. Final Fairness Hearing. A hearing will be held in Courtroom 11, United States District 20 Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division), 450 Golden Gate Ave., 19th 21 Floor, San Francisco, California 94102 at 10:00 a.m. on February 23, 2023 (“Settlement Fairness 22 Hearing”), to determine: (a) whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, 23 and adequate to the Class; (b) whether the Court should enter final approval of the settlement; 24 (c) whether to approve the application for incentive awards for the representative plaintiffs and an 25 award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to class counsel; and (d) any other matters that may 26 properly be brought before the Court in connection with the settlement. The date and time for the 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing may be changed by the Court without further notice to the Class. Class 28 members should contact class counsel or the claims administrator, or check the settlement website 1 ||regularly, for any updates or changes to the time for the fairness hearing or any other deadlines set 2 || by this order. 3 6. Objections and Appearances. Any settlement class member may comment in support 4 || of or in opposition to the settlement and may do so in writing, in person, or through counsel, at their 5 own expense, at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. Except as the Court may order otherwise, all 6 || objections must include: (1) the settlement class member’s full name, current mailing address, and 7 || telephone number; (ii) the specific grounds for the objection; (i11) all documents or writings that the 8 || settlement class member desires the Court to consider; and (iv) a statement regarding whether they 9 ||(or counsel of their choosing) intend to appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. All written 10 || objections must be postmarked no later than the Objection Deadline. Any objector who fails to meet 11 || these requirements may be deemed to have waived their objections. 12 7. Settlement Class Members. Settlement class members who have been identified from 13 || the defendants’ records will have 60 days from the issuance of the Notice Packet to request exclusion, 14 || object, or otherwise comment on the settlement. 15 8. Reasonable Procedures. Class counsel and defendants’ counsel are authorized to use 16 || all reasonable procedures in connection with approval and administration of the settlement that are 17 not materially inconsistent with this order or the Settlement Agreement, including making, without 18 || further approval of the Court, minor changes to the form or content of the Notice Packet, and other 19 || exhibits that they jointly agree are reasonable or necessary. 20 ||} IT ISSO ORDERED: 21 22 || Dated: September 30, 2022 James ato 23 Unitegf States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28
rc