Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OCTAVIO ALVARA DO, PABLO 1:08-cv- 01099 OWW DLB MARTINEZ, OMAR GOMEZ, DANIEL GOMEZ, JOSE DE JESUS GARCIA, MEMORANDUM DECISION RE on behalf of t hemselves and MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY all other simi larly situated APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION individuals, SETTLEMENT (DOC. 40) Plai ntiffs, v. REX NEDEREND A ND SHERI NEDEREND (dba “Northstar Dairy,” “Wildw ood Farms,” “Freeway Assoc iates”), Defe ndants.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a wage -and-hour class action brough t on behalf of Dair y workers employed by Rex and Sheri Nederend in, o r around, Tulare and/or Kern County, California. D eclaration of Stan S. Mallison, Doc. 47, ¶2; see also S econd Amend ed C lass Act ion Co mplaint (“SAC”), Doc. 27, filed Jan. 19, 2010. The action is brought on beh alf of Plaintiffs and approximately 150 current and fo rmer non-exempt employees of Defend ants for alleged violat ions of federal and state wage-and- hour laws. I d .
The parties ha ve entered into a Joint Stipu lation of Settlement. U nder the terms of the Settlement, the *2 parties move f or an order : (1) conditionally certifying a Settlement C lass; (2) preliminarily approving the Class Settlement; (3 ) appointing Class Representatives and Class Co unsel; (4) approving class no tice a nd related materials; (5) appointing a settlement administrator; and (6) scheduling a final approval hearing. Doc. 40.
Although the p ending motion was not filed until December 15, 2 010, at which time the first available hearing date w as March 7, 2011, the motion was advanced to and heard o n January 10, 2011, to accommodate the settlement sch edule.
II.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs all ege that Defendants failed to pay overtime and m inimum wages; failed to pay wages due at terminat ion of employment ; failed to provide all legally required meal periods and rest breaks; and failed to provide accura te, itemized employee wage statements. Plaintiffs sou ght to certify a class composed of themselves and similarly situated individuals and to recover back w ages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants. See SAC.
After the comp laint was filed, Plaintiffs conducted substantial di scovery and non -discove ry investigation regarding clas s certification and the merits of t heir *3 claims. Malli son Decl. at ¶ 34. Among other discovery, Plaintiffs ser ved an extensive set of document requests, demanding all of the critical payroll and timekeeping information at issue in this case, as well as the names and contact in formation f or D efendant s’ former and current employ ees. After meeting and conferring regarding thes e issues, Defendants produced the core payroll and ti mekeeping information. Id . a t ¶ 34. Defendants’ ti mekeeping system is both computer and “paper-b ased,” consisting of paper time rec ords f or the earlier part o f the time period and a database for the later part of the time period. Id . at ¶ 35 . This required Plain tiffs’ counsel to employ both database experts to ana lyze the data as well as to copy and review tens of thousa nds of pages of documents. Id . Mu ch of the document a nd data review took place with Plaintiffs and other witn esses, who guided counsel through time and payroll record s. Id .
III.
SUMMARY OF THE SETTL EMENT . The case was r esolved with the aid of a mediator’s proposal draft ed by Mediator former District Court Judge Raul Ramirez. Id . at ¶ 3 7. The Set tlement Agreement covers approxi mately 150 current and former Dairy employees who worked for Defendants from July 30, 2004 to *4 September 7, 2 010. Malli son Decl., Ex. 1, Doc. 47-1, Settlement Agr eement (“Settlement”) § I.N. A. Gross Settleme nt Payment.
Under the Sett lement, Defendants will make Gross Settlement Pay ments totaling $505,058.60 by November 8, 2011. Malliso n Decl. at ¶ 38. This total sum will cover:
• Settlement Sha res to be paid to Class Members who submit valid c laims; • any payroll wi thholding on the Settlement Shares; • a $10,000 paym ent to the California Labor and
Workforce Deve lopment Agency for its share of the settlement of civil penalties;
• the Settlement Administrator’s reasonable fees and expenses (no m ore than $15,000); • (subject to co urt approval) payments to Plaintiffs, in addition to their Settlement Shares, of $7,500 each in compen sation of their services as Class Representative s;
• and (als o subject to court approval) paymen ts to Class Counsel of no more than 33.33% of the gross settlement amo unt for their reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as $10,000 in expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting the case, preparing for *5 and negotiatin g at the me diation, documenting the Settlement, se curing approval of the Settlement, and related tasks.
Settlement, § III.A - C. There will be no revers ion of the Gross Sett lement Payment to Defendants. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 39. B. Payment of Set tlement Sha res.
After the othe r amounts are deducted, the Gross Settlement Amo unt (then called the “Net Settlement Amount”) will be distributed as Settlement Shares to all Class Members who submit valid claims, see Settlement § III, based upo n the following allocation formula:
The Settlement Share for each Claimant will be based on (a) that Claiman t’s total number of Months of Employment duri ng the Class Period (b) divided by the aggregate number of Months of Employment of all Partici pating Class Members during the Cla ss Per iod (with the div ision rounded to four decimal places) ( c) multiplied by the value of the Net Settleme nt Amount.
Settlement § I II.D.1. This formula relies upon objective evidence of th e term of employment, which Class Members can easily rev iew and con firm . Malli son Decl. at ¶ 40. In addition, t his information is readily available from Defendants’ re cords, and the Settlement Administrator can apply the form ula in a fair and transparent manner. Id . [1]
26 27
*6 The parties es timate that, if all amounts sought under the Settlement are awarded, a Class Member’s average Settlement Sha re will average approximately $2,000 per employee. Id . C. Distribution o f Unclaimed Funds and Uncashed Checks.
In the event that not all Class Members submit claims, the re sidue will be redistributed t o thos e Class Members who do submit valid claims. Settlement, § III.D.3. The settlement agreement provides that in the event that che cks issued to Class Members are not cashed, these monies w ill be donated to California Rural Legal Assistance, Id ., § III.F. 10, a public interest organizations that serves low -income workers in the same geographical a rea as the class. D. Scope of the R elease.
The scope of t he release by all Participating Class Members (all C lass Members other than those who e lect not the y we re n ot w it ho ut co nt ro ve rs y a nd wo ul d li ke ly l ea d to a my ri ad of ob je ct io ns . M al li son D ec l. a t ¶ 41 . P la in ti ff s’ c ou nse l rep re se nt s th at t he f orm ul a em pl oy e d i n th e Se tt le me nt i s c om mo nl y use d in w ag e- an d- ho ur ca se s, a nd i s ap pr op ri at e in t hi s cas e, w he re mos t wo rk er s ex pe ri en ce th e sa me w o rki ng c on di ti on s an d hav e si mi la r cla im s th at r ou gh ly c orr el at e wi th the n um be r of h ou rs t hat t he y hav e wo rk ed . I d . Fu rth er , Pl ai nt i ffs ’ co un se l ma in ta in s t ha t, alt ho ug h th ei r mi gh t be ma rg in al ly bet te r th eo re ti ca l me tho ds f or cal cu la ti ng a ll oc at io ns am on gs t cl a ss me mb er s, t he c os ts of obt ai ni ng a nd p ro ce ss ing t he i nf or m ati on n ec es sa ry a nd t o m ak e su ch cal cu la ti on s (e sp ec ia lly g iv en D ef e nda nt s’ r el ia nc e up on a pa pe r bas ed p ay ro ll s ys te m for p ar t of t h e c la ss p er io d) w ou ld li ke ly out we ig h an y be ne fi ts of u si ng a m o re co mp le x ca lc ul at io n m et ho d. Id . *7 to participate in the Settlement) tracks the scope of Plaintiffs’ al legations:
As of the date of the Judgment, all Participating Class Members hereby fully and finally releas e Defendants, and its parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, an d trusts, and all of its employees, off icers, agents, attorneys, stockholders, fiduciaries, other service providers, and assigns, from any and all claims, known and unkn own, for or related to all claims based on or ar ising from the allegations that they were or a re improperly compensated under federal, Calif ornia, or local law (the “Class’s Released Claim s”). The Class’s Released Claims include all su ch claims for alleged unpaid wages, includi ng overtime compensation, missed meal-per iod and rest-break wages or penalties, and interest; related penalties, including, but not limited to , recordkeeping penalties, pay- stub penalties , minimum-wage penaltie s, missed meal-per iod an d rest -break penalties, and waiting-time p enalties; and costs and attorneys’ fees and expen ses.
Settlement, § III.G.2. E. Objections and Opt-Out Process
Any Class Memb er who so wishes may object to or comment on the Settlement; or may elect not to participate in the Settlement. The Class Notice fully explains the o bjecti on/co mmen t and op t-in procedures. Settlement, § III.F.4., Exh. C. The Class Notice, as with all forms , will be provided to the Class Members in English and Sp anish. *8 F. Class Represen tative Payments; Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fee s Payment and Class Counsel L itigation Expenses Payme nt.
By a motion to be filed prior to the Final Approval Hearing, Plain tiffs and their counsel will seek (and Defendants hav e agreed not to oppose):
• awards to Plaintiffs of Class Representative Payments of $7,500 each, in addition to the ir Settlement Shares, in compensation for their services as Class Representatives; and
• awards to Class Counsel of a Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees Payment of not more than 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more tha n $10,000.
16 Settlement, § III.B.1-2. The exact a mounts requested, 17 and their just ification, will be detailed in a motion, 18 brief, and dec laration to be provided in conjunction with 19 20 the final appr oval of the settlement and are subject t o 21
this court’s f inal review and approval. 22
IV.
DISCUSSION 23 A. Request for Co nditional Certification of a Class for 24 Settlement. 25
Plaintiffs req uest certification of the Class under 26 Rule 23(c)(1) which permits a court to “make a 27 conditional de termination of whether an action should be 28 *9 maintained as a class action, subject to final approval at a later dat e.” Fry v. Hayt, Hayt & Land au , 198 F.R.D. 461, 466 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Conditional certification requires satis faction of the pre-requisites of Rule 23(a) and (b). Id .
1. Rule 23(a) Req uirements. Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 23(a) states in
pertinent part that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all.” As a th reshold matter, in order to certify a class, a court must be sa tisfied that
(1) the class is so numer ous that joinder of all members is impracticable (the "numerosity" requirement); (2) there a re questions of law or fact common to the class (the "commonality" requirement); (3) the cla ims or defenses of represen tative parti es are ty pical of the claims or defenses of the class (the "typicality" requirement); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequatel y protect the interests of the class (the "adequa cy of representation" requirement).
In re In tel Secs. Litig ., 89 F.R.D. 104, 11 2 (N.D . Cal. 1981)(citing F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)).
a. Numerosity. Here, the prop osed class is comprised of all individuals wh o have been employed by defendants in California as non-exempt Dairy workers during the period July 30, 2004 through September 7, 2010. There a re *10 approximately 150 Class Members. Courts have routinely found the nume rosity requirement satisfied when the class comprises 40 o r more members. Ansari v. Ne w York Univ ., 179 F.R.D. 112 , 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Numerosity is also satisfied wher e joining all Class members would serve only to impose financial burdens and clog the court’s docket. In re Intel Secs . Li tig., 89 F.R.D . at 112. Here, the join der of approximately 150 individual former employees woul d only furt her clog thi s court’s already overburdened d ocket.
b. Commmon Questi ons of Fact and Law. Commonality ex ists when there is either a common legal issue st emming from divergent factual predicates or a common nucle us of facts resulting in divergent legal theories. Han lon v. Chry sler Corp ., 150 F. 3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998 ). Here, the parties agree that potential Class Members advance claims that raise common questions of both law an d fact, including:
• Whether Norths tar authorized and permitted the Dairy workers to tak e required rest periods; • Whether Norths tar failed to pay Dairy workers an additional hou r of wages for missed meal periods and rest breaks;
• Whether Norths tar failed to pay all legally required *11 minimum wages and overtime compensation to hourly production wor kers;
• Whether hourly production workers are owed waiting time penalties because Northstar allegedly willfuly failed to pay them additional wages for missed meal periods and re st breaks, and for meal periods taken during which t hey re maine d on duty, u pon the termination of their employment; and
• Whether Norths tar’s business practices violated Business and P rofessions Code section 17200 et seq . Every class me mber was paid under the same pay
practices as e very other class member. The Commonality requirement is satisfied.
c. Typicality. Typicality is satisfied if the representatives’ claims arise f rom the same course of conduct as the class claims and are based on the same legal theory. See e.g., Kayes v. Pac. Lumber Co., 51 F.3d 1449, 1463 (9th Cir. 1995)(claims a re typical where named plaintiffs have the same claims as other members of the class and are not subject to uni que defenses). Because every class member was paid under the same pay practices as every other class member, the representatives’ claims a re typ ical of those of the o ther class members.
*12 d. Fair & Adequat e Representation. The final Rule 23(a) requirement is that the class representative fairly and adequately protect the interests of t he class. This requirement has two parts. First, the rep resentative’s attorney must be “qualified, experienced, a nd able to conduct the litigation.” In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Secs. Litig. , 122 F.R.D. 251, 257 (C.D. Cal. 1998 ). Second, the su it must not be “collusive” and the named Plaintiff’s in terests must not be “antagonistic to the class.” Id .
All requiremen ts are satisfied here. Proposed class counsel, Stan S. Mallison, Esq., of the law firm Mallison & Martinez, is highly experienced in labor class action litigation for more than 15 years. Mallison Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6. He is hi ghly qualif ied.
In addition, t he Class Representatives’ interests are completely ali gned with those of the class. Each Representative s’ interest is in maximizing their recovery . Although they will receive an ad ditional $7,500, this a ppears to be reasonable to compensate them for the time a nd expense he devoted to pursuing this case. S ee Dec larations o f Class Representatives, Docs. 41-45.
*13 2. Certification of a Class under Rule 23(b)(3). Once the thres hold requirements of Rule 23(a) are
satisfied, a c lass may be certified only if the class action satisfi es the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3). Here, the parties agree for purposes of th e Settlement only that certif ication of the Class is appro priate under Rule 23(b)(3) because “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predomin ate over any questions affecting only individual mem bers, and ... a class action is superior to other availabl e meth ods f or t he fair adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). B. Preliminary Ap proval of the Settlement.
In reviewing t he settlement, although it is not a court’s provin ce to “reach any ultimate conclusions on the contested issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the dispute,” a court should weigh the strength of plaintiff’s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duratio n of further litigation; the stage of the proceedings, a nd the value of the settlement offer. Chemical Bank v. City of Seat tle , 955 F.2d 1268, 1291 (9th Cir. 1992 ). The court should also watch for collusion betw een class counsel and defendants. Id . Preliminary ap proval of a settlement and notice to the
*14 1 proposed class is appropriate: “[i]f [1] the proposed 2
settlement app ears to be the product of serious, 3 informed, nonc ollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious 4 deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential 5 treatment to c lass representatives or segments of the 6 class, and [4] falls with the range of possible 7 approval....” In re Tabl ewar e Antitr ust Litig. , 484 F. 8 Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (adding numbers). 9 10
The Settlement proposed by the parties meets this test. 11 1. The Settlement Was the Project of Informed, Arm’s Length N egotiations. The Sett lement was reached after info rmed, arm’s
length negotia tions between the parties. Both parties conducted exte nsive investigation and discovery allowing them to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the case. As such, the S ettlement is the product of non-collusive negotiations. See Mallis on Decl. at ¶¶ 37-55. Plaintiffs’ co unsel had access to thousands of pages of documents and the full da tabase of timekeeping entries for the releva nt time period, which Plaintiffs’ expert and Plaintiffs ’ counsel reviewed prio r to and during the negotiations. Counsel was also informed by numerous interviews wit h witnesses to the allegations. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 48.
*15 2. The Proposed S ettlement Has No “Obvious Deficiencies.” The Settlement provides for a payment of $505,058 .60
by Defendants, which is substantial given the relatively small size of the class (approximately 150 members, with approximately 40 full time employees at any given time) and the limite d nature of the alleged violations at issue. The av erage settlement share is nearly $2,000 per employee. Mal lison Decl. at ¶ 40. All Settlement Shares to be paid und er the Settlement are determined by the number of mont hs each Class Member worked in a Covered Position. Id .
The Class Repr esentative Payments and the Class Counsel Attorn eys’ Fees Payment are appropriate, and are nevertheless s ubject to court approval at the Final Approval heari ng.
Finally, the e xpected Settlement Administrator’s fees and costs of a pproximately $15,000 are less than similar wage-and -hour settlements of this typ e and size. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 39.
3. The Settlement Falls Well Within the Range of Possible Appro val. 24 To determine w hether a settlement “falls within the 25 26 range of possi ble approval” a court must focus on 27
“substantive f airness and ade quacy,” and “consider 28 *16 plaintiffs’ ex pected recovery balanced against the value of the settlem ent offer.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig. , 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1080.
Defendants con test liability in this action and are prepared to vi gorously defend against these claims if the action is not settled. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 53. If the litigation pro ceeds, Plaintiffs would face significant risks. Id . at ¶ 53. For example, the primary cause of action in this case revolves around the provision of meal periods. Howe ver, the meaning of an employer’s obligation to provide meal periods under California law is currently b efore the California Supreme Court (see Brinker Restau rant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) , 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008) (review granted)). A defense ruling in Brin ker could i mpai r Plaint iffs’ ability to proceed on the se causes of action.
Even if Plaint iffs were to prevail, they would be required to ex pend considerable additional time and resources pote ntially outweighing any additional recovery obtained throu gh successful litigation. In addition, continued liti gation would clearly delay payment to the Class. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 50.
In light of th ese risks, the significant recovery is fair, reasonab le, and adequate and is in the best *17 1 interest of th e Settlement Class in light of all known 2
facts and circ umstances. 3 4. The Release Is Appropriate Given Plaintiffs’ Claims. As part of the Settlement, Class Members will be
deemed to have released all claims “based on or arising from the alleg ations that they were or are improperly compensated un der federal, California, or local law.” Settlement, § III. These released claims appropriately track the brea dth of Plaintiffs’ allegations in the action and the settlement does not release unrelated claims t hat cl ass members may have against defend ants.
5. Collusion. There is no ev idence of collusion here. The settlement is preliminarily approved as fair and
reasonable. C. Proposed Class Notice & Administration.
“Adequate noti ce is critical to court approval of a class settleme nt under Rule 23(e).” Hanlon , 150 F.3d at 1025. A class action settlement notice “is satisfactory if it generall y describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient det ail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to com e fo rward an d be heard.” *18 Churchill Vill age, LLC v. General Electric , 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, the prop osed Class Notice (Settlement, Exh. 2), and the manner of notice agreed upon by the parties (Settlement, § III.E.2.) is “the best notice practicable,” as required under Rule 23(c)(2)(B). All Class Members can be identified, and the Class Notice and the related ma terials (the Claim Form, Settlement, Exh. 3, and the for m of Election Not to Participate in Settlement, id ., Exh. 4) will be mailed directly to each Class Member. The Class Notice adequately informs Class Members of the nature of the litigation, the essential terms of the S ettlement, and how to make a claim under the Settlement , object to or comment on the Settlement, or elect not t o participate in the Settlement. Further, the Class Noti ce identifies Class Counsel, specifies the amounts of the Class Representative Payments, Class Counsel Attorn eys’ Fees Payment, and Class Counsel Litigation Exp enses Payment that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will s eek, and explains how to obtain additional information re garding the action and the Settlement. All of these forms and notices will be sent in English (as provided) and Spanish.
*19 Within 7 days after the C ourt grants prelim inary approval of th e Settlement, Defendant will provide the Settlement Adm inistrator with a spreadsheet containing the name and c urrent or last known address of each Class Member, as wel l as the employment dates necessary to calculate Sett lement Shares and administer the Settlement. S ettlement, § III.E.2.a. The Class Notice and other mate rials will be mailed by the Settlement Administrator within 10 days following Defendants’ delivery of th e Class Members’ data. Id ., § III.E.2.b. The Settlement Administrator also will send a reminder notice 14 days before the deadline for Class Members to submit claims. Id ., § II I.E.2.e. The Settlement Administrator will use the National Change of Address database to lo cate any Class Members whose Notices are returned as un deliverable. Id ., § II I.D. Not later than when the parti es file their motion for final approval of the Settlement , the Settlement Administrator will submit a declaration describing efforts made to locate all Class Members. Id ., § III.E.2. f.
The procedures set forth in the Settlement provide the best possi ble notice to the Class Members. *20 D. Simpluris Inc. is an Appropriate Settlement Administrator.
The parties ha ve agreed upon and propose that the Court appoint Simpluris, Inc. , to ser ve as the Settlement Administrator. Simpluris is experienced in administering wage-and -hour class actio n se ttlement s, and has bid its fees and costs for this Settlement at $15,000. Mallison Decl. at ¶ 64, Exh. 5. E. Settlement App roval Schedule.
The following schedule for approval of the Settlement is adopted: Date Event 1/10 /10 Prel imi nar y A ppr ova l h eari ng (al l da tes th at foll ow ass ume th is dat e) 1/24 /11 Defe nda nts to pr ovi de to S ett lem ent Admi nis tra tor wi th an elec tro nic dat a b ase cont ain ing Cl ass Me mbe r co nta ct info rma tio n and dat a n ece ssa ry to calc ula te sett lem ent shar es (7d ays af ter Pr elim ina ry Appr ova l)
2/4/ 11 Sett lem ent Ad min ist rat or t o m ail Not ice Pack ets to al l C las s M embe rs (10 day s a fte r rece ivi ng Cla ss Mem ber inf orm ati on)
2/25 /11 Date fo r S ett lem ent Ad mini str ato r to co nta ct Clas s M emb ers wh o h ave not su bmi tted Cl aim Form s t o r emi nd the m o f th e o f t he u pco min g dead lin e
*21 3/7/ 11 Last da y f or Cla ss Mem bers to co mmen t o n o r obje ct to Set tle men t ( 30 d ays af ter mai lin g of N oti ce Pac ket s), to mai l v ali d El ect ion s Not to Par tic ipa te in Sett lem ent , an d t o m ail vali d c lai ms for Se ttl emen t S har es ( 30 day s afte r m ail ing of No tic e Pa cke ts)
3/14 /11 Last da y f or Set tle men t Ad min ist rato r t o repo rt to par tie s o n C lass Me mbe rs w ho hav e elec ted no t t o p art ici pate in Se ttle men t o r who hav e s ubm itt ed cla ims (7 day s af ter th e dead lin e f or sub mis sio n of El ect ions No t t o Part ici pat e i n S ett lem ent and Cl aims Fo rms )
3/14 /11 Last da y f or Set tle men t Ad min ist rato r t o serv e o n t he par tie s a nd f ile wi th t he Cou rt stat eme nt of due di lig ence in co mply ing wi th its obl iga tio ns und er the set tle ment .
3/25 /11 Due dat e f or mot ion fo r fi nal ap prov al of sett lem ent an d p lai nti ff’s se par ate mot ion for cla ss rep res ent ati ve f ee and cla ss coun sel ’s att orn eys ’ f ees and ex pens es
4/4/ 11 Fina l a ppr ova l h ear ing
V.
CONCLUSION For all the re asons set forth above: (1) The Settle ment Class is conditionally certified; (2) The Class Settlement is preliminarily approved; (3) Stan S. Ma llison, Esq., of Mallison & Martinez is
appointed Clas s Counsel; (4) The named plaintiffs are appointed Class Representative s; (5) The class notice and related materials are approved for d istribution; (5) Simp luris, Inc., is appoi nted set tlement *22 administrator; and (6) The Schedu le set fort h ab ove is a dopted, with the final approval hearing set for April 4, 2011, at 10:00 am in Courtroom 3 (OWW).
Plaintiffs sha ll submit a form of order consistent with this deci sion within five (5) days following electronic ser vice.
SO ORDERED
Dated: January 11, 2011
/s/ O liver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wang er United States District Judge
NOTES
[1] Pl ai nt if fs ’ co un se l con si de re d ot h er, m or e co mp li ca te d 28 met ho ds , bu t de te rm in ed th at a lt ho u gh th es e me th od s ha ve so me m er it ,