Nen Thio v. Genji, LLC
14 F. Supp. 3d 1324
| N.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege Genji misclassified in-store managers and deprived employees of meal/rest breaks and overtime, asserting California and FLSA wage-and-hour and related claims across California stores and nationwide Sushi Team Leaders.
- The action was filed as a California statewide class action and a nationwide FLSA collective action seeking unpaid wages and related relief.
- Parties mediated the settlement with a mediator experienced in wage-and-hour actions, resulting in a global settlement.
- Settlement provides a total cash amount up to $1,250,000, with separate California and FLSA (opt-in) components and proposed subclasses.
- Court preliminarily approves the settlement, conditionally certifies Rule 23 class and FLSA collective for settlement purposes, and approves notice procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. | Settlement is fair, adequate, non-collusive, and within range of approval. | Settlement balances risk and is a reasonable compromise. | Yes; court preliminarily approves. |
| Whether a Rule 23 class should be conditionally certified for settlement. | Class meets numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority. | Certification is appropriate for settlement given common questions and economies. | Yes; court conditionally certifies the Rule 23 class for settlement. |
| Whether the FLSA collective action should be conditionally certified and notice issued. | Evidence shows a common policy denying overtime to Sushi Team Leaders. | Some individuals may be variably situated; still, notice is appropriate at this stage. | Yes; court conditionally certifies the FLSA collective and allows notice. |
| Whether the settlement’s release and distribution plan are fair and adequately explained. | Distribution formulae adequately address overtime, rest-break, and related claims; cy pres and payroll-tax handling are appropriate. | Allocations should reflect actual maximum recoveries and potential penalties; concerns noted but acceptable at preliminary stage. | Roughly acceptable; overall structure deemed fair for preliminary approval. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1998) (strong policy favoring settlements; class action fairness protections)
- In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) (protects unnamed class members in settlement approvals)
- Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) (preliminary approval standards—fairness, adequacy, reasonableness)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement must stand or fall in its entirety; no selective modification)
- Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (FLSA settlements require court supervision; reasonable compromise favored)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (FLSA settlements require judicial supervision; non-waivable claims)
- In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (balances in class settlements; range of possible approval)
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (adequacy and fairness considerations for class actions)
- Churchill Village v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (guideposts for evaluating settlement fairness and certification)