Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.

N.D. California

Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.

DecidedOctober 21, 2024

Docket3:18-cv-04810

StatusUnknown

This text of Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A. (Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A., (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LINDA SCHEID, 7 Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS FOR FINAL PPROVAL OF 9 SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PNC BANK, N.A., LITIGATION COSTS, SERVICE 10 PAYMENT AND FEES TO Defendant. SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 264, 269 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Related Relief, 14 dkt. no. 269 (“Motion for Final Approval”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and 15 Service Payment, dkt. no. 264 (“Fee Motion”). Two substantively identical objections 16 (“Objections”) to final approval were filed by class members Michael Treon and Nelly Mellian 17 (“Objectors”). Dkt. nos. 267-268. A final fairness hearing was held on October 16, 2024 at which 18 the parties and the Objectors appeared through counsel. No other class members attended the 19 fairness hearing or raised any objection to the settlement. Having considered the papers submitted 20 in support of the motions and the Objections and arguments presented by counsel at the fairness 21 hearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval and the Fee Motion and ORDERS as 22 follows: 23 1. The Objections are OVERRULED. In their written objections, Objectors raised 24 concerns about the list of claims contained in the second half of the release in Paragraph 24 of the 25 Settlement Agreement,1 following the words “including but not limited to.” Objectors conceded 26 1 The release states, in full: 27 1 that the words that precede the list of claims are lawful under Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 2 590-591 (9th Cir. 2010) (“we have held that federal district courts properly released claims not 3 alleged in the underlying complaint where those claims depended on the same set of facts as the 4 claims that gave rise to the settlement.”). They argued, however, that the list of claims in the 5 second half of the release renders the release ambiguous to the extent the list includes claims that 6 have nothing to do with the facts of this case and therefore go beyond the scope allowed by Hesse. 7 The Court overrules this objection because the language of the release is clear. As both 8 Plaintiff and PNC Bank conceded at the fairness hearing, the language that precedes the list of 9 claims limits the scope of the release to claims that arise out of or are based on the same set of 10 facts that gave rise to the settlement. Thus, any claim that does not meet that requirement is not 11 released, regardless of whether it is included in the list of claims in the second half of the release. 12 It is based on this understanding – and not on the basis of any finding that the claims listed in the 13 second half of the release are necessarily encompassed by the release – that the Court overrules 14 this objection. 15 The Court also overrules the objection – raised for the first time at the fairness hearing by 16 Objectors -- that even if the release is lawful under Hesse, it is unfair because it releases valuable 17 claims that were not adequately taken into account by the parties when they negotiated the 18 settlement amount. The bare assertions of Objectors’ counsel that the settlement undervalues the 19 (i.e., whether under statute, contract, common law, or equity), during the Settlement Period, 20 arising out of or based on the facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, including but not limited to claims for violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204b, 21 210, 216, 221, 223, 225.5, 226, 226(a), 226(b), 226(e)(2)(B), 226.2, 226.3, 226.7, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.3, and 2802; violations of 22 applicable California Wage Orders (including 4-2001 and 9-2001) §§ 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 17, and 20; violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; violations of and 23 penalties under PAGA (including in relation to each issue and provision listed in this Settlement or otherwise covered in the Action, Complaint, and/or PAGA Notices); and relief 24 under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 384 and 1021.5. “Damages” as used in this paragraph 24, refers to all damages that could be awarded for violations of the Released 25 Claims, including but not limited to unpaid wages; liquidated, exemplary, punitive, and other damages; other monetary relief; statutory, regulatory, or other penalties; pre-judgment and 26 postjudgment interest; statutory and non-statutory attorneys’ fees; costs and expenses; injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; or any other kind. 27 1 released claims does not persuade the Court that the amount of the settlement is unreasonable. 2 Objectors’ class action was filed just over a month ago and there is nothing in the record to 3 suggest that any discovery has been conducted in that case. In contrast, there has been extensive 4 discovery in this case, including the production of payroll data, time records, and compensation 5 plans, as well as depositions of key witnesses. See Swidler Decl., dkt. no. 255-1, ¶¶ 7-8. In 6 addition, Plaintiff’s counsel, who are experienced class action attorneys, litigated this case 7 vigorously over many years and believe the amount of the settlement and the scope of the release 8 is fair and reasonable. See Swidler Decl., dkt. no. 255-1, ¶ 20; Soloff Decl., dkt. no. 255-3, ¶13; 9 Silverman Decl., dkt. no. 255-4, ¶ 7. Finally, the settlement was negotiated over a period of ten 10 months with the assistance of an experienced mediator and two magistrate judges and it is 11 apparent from the release language and the definition of the Settlement Period (ending June 1, 12 2023) that the parties and the mediators did not exclude from the negotiations consideration of 13 claims based on conduct that occurred after 2019. All of these facts point to the conclusion that the 14 scope of the release does not render the amount of the settlement unfair to class members. 15 2. The Court GRANTS final approval to the Settlement Agreement, including the 16 California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) portion of the Settlement, as fair and 17 reasonable and in the best interest of the class; 18 3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a Service Payment to Plaintiff Linda Scheid, 19 the sole class representative, of $10,000, for her significant contributions to the class; 20 4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees of 1/3 of the $11,850,000 21 Settlement Fund, totaling $3,950,000 as fair and reasonable; 22 5. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of Class Counsel’s litigation 23 costs totaling $67,471.78; 24 6. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for Angeion Group, LLC to be paid $28,500 25 from the Settlement Fund for payment for administration services provided to the class; 26 7. The Court ORDERS Defendant to wire the Gross Settlement Fund, together with an 27 amount calculated by the Settlement Administrator as necessary to pay employer-side taxes, by no 1 Agreement {| 36. 2 8. The Court ORDERS Angeion Group, LLC to issue payments, less all required taxes 3 and withholding, to Class Members for the Individual Settlement Payments and Aggrieved 4 || Employee Payments, by no later than the later of: (1) the Effective Date of the Settlement, or (2) 5 ten (10) calendar days after Defendant transfers the gross settlement fund to it, Settlement 6 || Agreement {] 38(d). 7 9. The Court ORDERS Angeion Group, LLC. to issue payment for the approved Service 8 || Payment to Plaintiff Linda Schied by no later than the later of: (1) the Effective Date of the 9 Settlement, or (2) ten (10) calendar days after Defendant transfers the gross settlement fund to it, 10 Settlement Agreement 4 38(d). 11 10.

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LINDA SCHEID, 7 Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS FOR FINAL PPROVAL OF 9 SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PNC BANK, N.A., LITIGATION COSTS, SERVICE 10 PAYMENT AND FEES TO Defendant. SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 264, 269 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Related Relief, 14 dkt. no. 269 (“Motion for Final Approval”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and 15 Service Payment, dkt. no. 264 (“Fee Motion”). Two substantively identical objections 16 (“Objections”) to final approval were filed by class members Michael Treon and Nelly Mellian 17 (“Objectors”). Dkt. nos. 267-268. A final fairness hearing was held on October 16, 2024 at which 18 the parties and the Objectors appeared through counsel. No other class members attended the 19 fairness hearing or raised any objection to the settlement. Having considered the papers submitted 20 in support of the motions and the Objections and arguments presented by counsel at the fairness 21 hearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval and the Fee Motion and ORDERS as 22 follows: 23 1. The Objections are OVERRULED. In their written objections, Objectors raised 24 concerns about the list of claims contained in the second half of the release in Paragraph 24 of the 25 Settlement Agreement,1 following the words “including but not limited to.” Objectors conceded 26 1 The release states, in full: 27 1 that the words that precede the list of claims are lawful under Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 2 590-591 (9th Cir. 2010) (“we have held that federal district courts properly released claims not 3 alleged in the underlying complaint where those claims depended on the same set of facts as the 4 claims that gave rise to the settlement.”). They argued, however, that the list of claims in the 5 second half of the release renders the release ambiguous to the extent the list includes claims that 6 have nothing to do with the facts of this case and therefore go beyond the scope allowed by Hesse. 7 The Court overrules this objection because the language of the release is clear. As both 8 Plaintiff and PNC Bank conceded at the fairness hearing, the language that precedes the list of 9 claims limits the scope of the release to claims that arise out of or are based on the same set of 10 facts that gave rise to the settlement. Thus, any claim that does not meet that requirement is not 11 released, regardless of whether it is included in the list of claims in the second half of the release. 12 It is based on this understanding – and not on the basis of any finding that the claims listed in the 13 second half of the release are necessarily encompassed by the release – that the Court overrules 14 this objection. 15 The Court also overrules the objection – raised for the first time at the fairness hearing by 16 Objectors -- that even if the release is lawful under Hesse, it is unfair because it releases valuable 17 claims that were not adequately taken into account by the parties when they negotiated the 18 settlement amount. The bare assertions of Objectors’ counsel that the settlement undervalues the 19 (i.e., whether under statute, contract, common law, or equity), during the Settlement Period, 20 arising out of or based on the facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, including but not limited to claims for violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204b, 21 210, 216, 221, 223, 225.5, 226, 226(a), 226(b), 226(e)(2)(B), 226.2, 226.3, 226.7, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.3, and 2802; violations of 22 applicable California Wage Orders (including 4-2001 and 9-2001) §§ 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 17, and 20; violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; violations of and 23 penalties under PAGA (including in relation to each issue and provision listed in this Settlement or otherwise covered in the Action, Complaint, and/or PAGA Notices); and relief 24 under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 384 and 1021.5. “Damages” as used in this paragraph 24, refers to all damages that could be awarded for violations of the Released 25 Claims, including but not limited to unpaid wages; liquidated, exemplary, punitive, and other damages; other monetary relief; statutory, regulatory, or other penalties; pre-judgment and 26 postjudgment interest; statutory and non-statutory attorneys’ fees; costs and expenses; injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; or any other kind. 27 1 released claims does not persuade the Court that the amount of the settlement is unreasonable. 2 Objectors’ class action was filed just over a month ago and there is nothing in the record to 3 suggest that any discovery has been conducted in that case. In contrast, there has been extensive 4 discovery in this case, including the production of payroll data, time records, and compensation 5 plans, as well as depositions of key witnesses. See Swidler Decl., dkt. no. 255-1, ¶¶ 7-8. In 6 addition, Plaintiff’s counsel, who are experienced class action attorneys, litigated this case 7 vigorously over many years and believe the amount of the settlement and the scope of the release 8 is fair and reasonable. See Swidler Decl., dkt. no. 255-1, ¶ 20; Soloff Decl., dkt. no. 255-3, ¶13; 9 Silverman Decl., dkt. no. 255-4, ¶ 7. Finally, the settlement was negotiated over a period of ten 10 months with the assistance of an experienced mediator and two magistrate judges and it is 11 apparent from the release language and the definition of the Settlement Period (ending June 1, 12 2023) that the parties and the mediators did not exclude from the negotiations consideration of 13 claims based on conduct that occurred after 2019. All of these facts point to the conclusion that the 14 scope of the release does not render the amount of the settlement unfair to class members. 15 2. The Court GRANTS final approval to the Settlement Agreement, including the 16 California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) portion of the Settlement, as fair and 17 reasonable and in the best interest of the class; 18 3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a Service Payment to Plaintiff Linda Scheid, 19 the sole class representative, of $10,000, for her significant contributions to the class; 20 4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees of 1/3 of the $11,850,000 21 Settlement Fund, totaling $3,950,000 as fair and reasonable; 22 5. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of Class Counsel’s litigation 23 costs totaling $67,471.78; 24 6. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for Angeion Group, LLC to be paid $28,500 25 from the Settlement Fund for payment for administration services provided to the class; 26 7. The Court ORDERS Defendant to wire the Gross Settlement Fund, together with an 27 amount calculated by the Settlement Administrator as necessary to pay employer-side taxes, by no 1 Agreement {| 36. 2 8. The Court ORDERS Angeion Group, LLC to issue payments, less all required taxes 3 and withholding, to Class Members for the Individual Settlement Payments and Aggrieved 4 || Employee Payments, by no later than the later of: (1) the Effective Date of the Settlement, or (2) 5 ten (10) calendar days after Defendant transfers the gross settlement fund to it, Settlement 6 || Agreement {] 38(d). 7 9. The Court ORDERS Angeion Group, LLC. to issue payment for the approved Service 8 || Payment to Plaintiff Linda Schied by no later than the later of: (1) the Effective Date of the 9 Settlement, or (2) ten (10) calendar days after Defendant transfers the gross settlement fund to it, 10 Settlement Agreement 4 38(d). 11 10. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide a final class list, containing all information 12 || necessary to calculate payments due and to pay class members according to the terms of the 5 13 settlement within 14 days; 14 11. The Court ORDERS Angeion Group, LLC. to issue payment for the approved 3 15 attorney’s fees and costs to Class Counsel, by no later than the later of: (1) the Effective Date of 16 || the Settlement, or (2) ten (10) calendar days after Defendant transfers the gross settlement fund to 3 17 it, Settlement Agreement {] 38(d). 18 Judgment consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement will be entered 19 separately. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: October 21, 2024 23 24 ss LZ € Mie J PH C. SPERO 25 nited States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanseer-kazi-v-pnc-bank-na-cand-2024.