1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL RANDALL, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05438-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. ALLOW SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM 13 INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THE SERVICE INC, DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUAL 14 SETTLEMENT FUNDS (DKT. NO. Defendant. 137) 15 16 I INTRODUCTION 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Allow Settlement Administrator to 18 Perform Additional Services in the Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds. (Dkt. No. 137.) 19 Plaintiffs request the Court allow the Court-appointed Settlement Administrator, Phoenix 20 Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”) to perform additional administration services in the 21 distribution of the remaining Net Settlement Fund to class and collective members. (Id. at 2.) 22 Phoenix seeks to perform additional skip-tracing as a final effort to reach class and 23 collective members who are entitled to receive funds under the settlement approved by the Court. 24 1 (Id.) Upon completing the skip-tracing, Phoenix requests the Court allow them to distribute the 2 residual settlement funds as a cy pres payment to the National Employment Law Project 3 (“NELP”). (Id. at 2, 4.) 4 II BACKGROUND
5 On March 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class and 6 collective action settlement. (Dkt. No. 136.) Therein, the Court confirmed the appointment of 7 Phoenix as the Settlement Administrator and approved the NELP as the cy pres recipient. (Id. at 8 5–6.) 9 In its prior order, the Court approved the following implementation schedule: 10 Effective Date Either (i) if any timely objection is filed to the Settlement that is not subsequently 11 withdrawn, then the date upon the expiration of time for appeal of the Court’s Final 12 Approval Order; or (ii) if any timely objection and appeal by an objector is filed, 13 then after any appeal is dismissed or the Court’s Final Approval Order is affirmed on 14 appeal; or (iii) if there are no timely objections to the Settlement, or if any 15 objections that were filed are withdrawn before the date of final approval, then the first 16 business day after the Court’s order granting Final Approval of the Settlement, whichever 17 is latest. Deadline for Defendants to pay the Gross Within 21 calendar days after the Effective 18 Settlement Amount into the Qualified Date Settlement Account 19 Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Within 45 calendar days after the Effective 20 make payments under the Settlement to Date Participating Individuals, Settlement Class 21 Representatives, Class Counsel, and itself Deadline for Settlement Administrator to send With 90 days remaining of the check-cashing 22 reminder letter to Participating Individuals deadline who have yet to cash their checks 23 Check-cashing deadline 180 calendar days after issuance 24 1 Deadline for Settlement Administrator to As soon as practicable after check-cashing redistribute remaining funds from uncashed deadline 2 checks to cy pres recipient Deadline for Settlement Administrator to As soon as practicable after check-cashing 3 provide Post-Judgment Report deadline 4 (Dkt. No. 136 at 5.) 5 Phoenix adhered to the implementation schedule set out by the Court. On April 23, 2024, 6 and in accordance with the Court’s order, Defendants deposited $2,259,017.00 into the Qualified 7 Settlement Fund (“QSF”). (Dkt. No. 137 at 3.) Then, on May 16, 2024, Phoenix issued and 8 mailed checks from the QSF to the 752 Participating Class Members. (Id.) On August 14, 2024, 9 Phoenix mailed a reminder postcard to Participating Class Members whose checks remained 10 uncashed. (Id.) On November 12, 2024, the check-cashing period for Participating Class 11 Members expired. (Id.) Currently, 191 checks, totaling $208,266.39, remain uncashed. (Id.) 12 During the check-cashing period 50 checks were returned as undeliverable. (Id.) Phoenix skip- 13 traced all 50 checks and was able to obtain updated addresses for 38 checks. (Id.) 12 checks 14 were determined to be undeliverable because Phoenix was unable to obtain updated addresses. 15 (Id.) 16 Plaintiffs propose Phoenix conduct an additional skip-trace of all remaining 191 17 uncashed checks to obtain updated addresses, reissue replacement checks to all 191 Participating 18 Class members, and issue a reminder postcard. (Id.) Phoenix anticipates this process will 19 amount to $2,596.69 in costs and asks for these costs to be deducted from the uncashed funds. 20 (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiffs request the Court allow any uncashed funds after the reissuance of 21 checks be paid to the NELP. (Id.) 22 23
24 1 III DISCUSSION 2 “The cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non-distributable portions 3 of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, 4 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus
5 Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307–08 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[F]ederal courts frequently use the cy pres 6 doctrine ‘in the settlement of class actions where the proof of individual claims would be 7 burdensome or distribution of damages costly.’” Id. at 1038 (quoting Six Mexican Workers, 904 8 F.2d at 1305). “In the context of class action settlements, a court may employ the cy pres 9 doctrine to ‘put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, 10 indirect, prospective benefit of the class.’” Id. (quoting Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, 11 Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir.2007)). To ensure the “next best” beneficiary is identified, the 12 Ninth Circuit held “cy pres distribution must be guided by (1) the objectives of the underlying 13 statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class members.” Id. at 1039 (citing Six Mexican 14 Workers, 904 F.2d at 1307).
15 Phoenix fulfilled its duties as prescribed by the settlement. (See Dkt. Nos. 120 at 12–13, 16 18; 136 at 5; 137 at 3.) Now, Phoenix seeks to perform an additional skip-trace to afford class 17 members another opportunity to claim their checks. Thus, here, the Court finds it appropriate 18 that after affording class members every opportunity to claim their allotted settlement funds, 19 Phoenix pay the unclaimed settlement funds to the NELP. 20 This Court approved the NELP as the cy pres recipient in its order granting final approval 21 of the class and collective action settlement. (Dkt. No. 136 at 5.) NELP is a national nonprofit 22 legal and policy advocacy organization that seeks “[t]o build a just and inclusive economy where 23 all workers have expansive rights and thrive in good jobs.” About Us, National Employment
24 1 Law Project (last visited May 7, 2025), https://www.nelp.org/about-us/. The settlement bore out 2 of alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the wage and hour laws of 3 Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. (Dkt. No. 120 at 10.) Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to 4 compensate them appropriately, failed to provide them with proper meal and rest breaks, and
5 required them to incur work-related expenses. (See id.) The mission of NELP aligns with the 6 purpose of the FLSA and its corresponding state laws, and is accordance with the interests of the 7 silent class members. And so, here, NELP is an appropriate beneficiary of the unclaimed funds.
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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL RANDALL, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05438-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. ALLOW SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM 13 INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THE SERVICE INC, DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUAL 14 SETTLEMENT FUNDS (DKT. NO. Defendant. 137) 15 16 I INTRODUCTION 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Allow Settlement Administrator to 18 Perform Additional Services in the Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds. (Dkt. No. 137.) 19 Plaintiffs request the Court allow the Court-appointed Settlement Administrator, Phoenix 20 Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”) to perform additional administration services in the 21 distribution of the remaining Net Settlement Fund to class and collective members. (Id. at 2.) 22 Phoenix seeks to perform additional skip-tracing as a final effort to reach class and 23 collective members who are entitled to receive funds under the settlement approved by the Court. 24 1 (Id.) Upon completing the skip-tracing, Phoenix requests the Court allow them to distribute the 2 residual settlement funds as a cy pres payment to the National Employment Law Project 3 (“NELP”). (Id. at 2, 4.) 4 II BACKGROUND
5 On March 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class and 6 collective action settlement. (Dkt. No. 136.) Therein, the Court confirmed the appointment of 7 Phoenix as the Settlement Administrator and approved the NELP as the cy pres recipient. (Id. at 8 5–6.) 9 In its prior order, the Court approved the following implementation schedule: 10 Effective Date Either (i) if any timely objection is filed to the Settlement that is not subsequently 11 withdrawn, then the date upon the expiration of time for appeal of the Court’s Final 12 Approval Order; or (ii) if any timely objection and appeal by an objector is filed, 13 then after any appeal is dismissed or the Court’s Final Approval Order is affirmed on 14 appeal; or (iii) if there are no timely objections to the Settlement, or if any 15 objections that were filed are withdrawn before the date of final approval, then the first 16 business day after the Court’s order granting Final Approval of the Settlement, whichever 17 is latest. Deadline for Defendants to pay the Gross Within 21 calendar days after the Effective 18 Settlement Amount into the Qualified Date Settlement Account 19 Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Within 45 calendar days after the Effective 20 make payments under the Settlement to Date Participating Individuals, Settlement Class 21 Representatives, Class Counsel, and itself Deadline for Settlement Administrator to send With 90 days remaining of the check-cashing 22 reminder letter to Participating Individuals deadline who have yet to cash their checks 23 Check-cashing deadline 180 calendar days after issuance 24 1 Deadline for Settlement Administrator to As soon as practicable after check-cashing redistribute remaining funds from uncashed deadline 2 checks to cy pres recipient Deadline for Settlement Administrator to As soon as practicable after check-cashing 3 provide Post-Judgment Report deadline 4 (Dkt. No. 136 at 5.) 5 Phoenix adhered to the implementation schedule set out by the Court. On April 23, 2024, 6 and in accordance with the Court’s order, Defendants deposited $2,259,017.00 into the Qualified 7 Settlement Fund (“QSF”). (Dkt. No. 137 at 3.) Then, on May 16, 2024, Phoenix issued and 8 mailed checks from the QSF to the 752 Participating Class Members. (Id.) On August 14, 2024, 9 Phoenix mailed a reminder postcard to Participating Class Members whose checks remained 10 uncashed. (Id.) On November 12, 2024, the check-cashing period for Participating Class 11 Members expired. (Id.) Currently, 191 checks, totaling $208,266.39, remain uncashed. (Id.) 12 During the check-cashing period 50 checks were returned as undeliverable. (Id.) Phoenix skip- 13 traced all 50 checks and was able to obtain updated addresses for 38 checks. (Id.) 12 checks 14 were determined to be undeliverable because Phoenix was unable to obtain updated addresses. 15 (Id.) 16 Plaintiffs propose Phoenix conduct an additional skip-trace of all remaining 191 17 uncashed checks to obtain updated addresses, reissue replacement checks to all 191 Participating 18 Class members, and issue a reminder postcard. (Id.) Phoenix anticipates this process will 19 amount to $2,596.69 in costs and asks for these costs to be deducted from the uncashed funds. 20 (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiffs request the Court allow any uncashed funds after the reissuance of 21 checks be paid to the NELP. (Id.) 22 23
24 1 III DISCUSSION 2 “The cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non-distributable portions 3 of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, 4 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus
5 Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307–08 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[F]ederal courts frequently use the cy pres 6 doctrine ‘in the settlement of class actions where the proof of individual claims would be 7 burdensome or distribution of damages costly.’” Id. at 1038 (quoting Six Mexican Workers, 904 8 F.2d at 1305). “In the context of class action settlements, a court may employ the cy pres 9 doctrine to ‘put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, 10 indirect, prospective benefit of the class.’” Id. (quoting Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, 11 Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir.2007)). To ensure the “next best” beneficiary is identified, the 12 Ninth Circuit held “cy pres distribution must be guided by (1) the objectives of the underlying 13 statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class members.” Id. at 1039 (citing Six Mexican 14 Workers, 904 F.2d at 1307).
15 Phoenix fulfilled its duties as prescribed by the settlement. (See Dkt. Nos. 120 at 12–13, 16 18; 136 at 5; 137 at 3.) Now, Phoenix seeks to perform an additional skip-trace to afford class 17 members another opportunity to claim their checks. Thus, here, the Court finds it appropriate 18 that after affording class members every opportunity to claim their allotted settlement funds, 19 Phoenix pay the unclaimed settlement funds to the NELP. 20 This Court approved the NELP as the cy pres recipient in its order granting final approval 21 of the class and collective action settlement. (Dkt. No. 136 at 5.) NELP is a national nonprofit 22 legal and policy advocacy organization that seeks “[t]o build a just and inclusive economy where 23 all workers have expansive rights and thrive in good jobs.” About Us, National Employment
24 1 Law Project (last visited May 7, 2025), https://www.nelp.org/about-us/. The settlement bore out 2 of alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the wage and hour laws of 3 Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. (Dkt. No. 120 at 10.) Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to 4 compensate them appropriately, failed to provide them with proper meal and rest breaks, and
5 required them to incur work-related expenses. (See id.) The mission of NELP aligns with the 6 purpose of the FLSA and its corresponding state laws, and is accordance with the interests of the 7 silent class members. And so, here, NELP is an appropriate beneficiary of the unclaimed funds. 8 IV CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, and having considered Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and the remainder of 10 the record, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Allow Settlement 11 Administrator to Perform Additional Services in the Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds is 12 GRANTED and ORDERS as follows: 13 1. As soon as practicable following the date of this Order, the Settlement 14 Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”), shall conduct an 15 additional skip-trace of all uncashed checks to obtain a more-recent address for 16 Participating Class Members where possible. 2. Following the skip-trace and as soon as practicable, Phoenix will issue 17 replacement checks to all Participating Class Members whose checks remain 18 uncashed as of the date of this Order. 19 3. After issuance of replacement checks and during the check cashing period, 20 Phoenix will issue a reminder postcard to any individuals who fail to negotiate the 21 replacement payments. 22 4. The Court approves the requested additional expenses of $2,596.69 associated 23 with these additional steps to be paid to Phoenix, and such additional expenses shall be deducted from the uncashed funds prior to reissuance of payments. 24 1 2 Dated this 7th day of May, 2025. 3 A 4 David G. Estudillo 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23