Boring v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited Liability Company, 3:12-cv-05259

Plaintiff Sean Boring, an assistant manager, alleges BB&B of California failed to reimburse employees for business use of personal vehicles and fuel costs under Labor Code 2802 and related statutes.
Approximately 1,400 current/former store managers, assistant managers, and department managers are proposed as the settlement class.
Settlement contemplates a $415,000 maximum amount with allocations for fees, costs, administration, service enhancement, and distribution to class members.
Net per-class-member payout is approximately $239,166.67 to be divided pro rata by weeks worked, capped at ten times each member’s estimated payment.
Cy pres provision designates the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the Bar Association of San Francisco as the cy pres beneficiary if funds remain after allocations.
Settlement was reached after six months of discovery and a day-long mediation; preliminary approval is sought pending notice and final fairness determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement class should be certified for settlement purposes	Boring seeks certification based on common questions and cohesive class claims	BB&B challenges if common issues predominate and the class is ascertainable	Yes; the Court preliminarily certifies the settlement class
Whether Rule 23(a) requirements are satisfied	Plaintiff asserts numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy	Defendant contends some requirements are not met	All four 23(a) elements satisfied
Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority are met	Common questions about reimbursement policies predominate	Individual issues could undermine predominance	Predominance and superiority satisfied for a settlement class
Appointment of class representative and class counsel	Boring will adequately represent the class; counsel are experienced	No contrary conflicts or deficiencies identified	Plaintiff appointed as class representative; Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. and Michael Malk, Esq. appointed as Class Counsel
Preliminary approval and notice plan sufficiency	Settlement appears fair, reasonable, and not collusive; notices will be properly distributed	No explicit objection in record yet	Preliminary approval granted, subject to amended notice/claim forms and cy pres validation

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and class-wide questions required for 23(a)(2))
Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (litigation class settlements require careful balancing of interests and fairness)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (adequacy, typicality, and predominance considerations in class actions)
In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (preliminary approval standards and range of possible approval)
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (cy pres and settlement approval principles)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (anti-collusion and review of settlement terms)
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong policy favoring class settlements; preliminary approvals)