1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN 192675) 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 [email protected][email protected]SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. (SBN 166977) Nicole N. Coon, Esq. (SBN 286283) 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected][email protected]UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 71075) 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen) CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February 2, 2017 TIME: 1:30 p.m. CTRM: 5 Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 16
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN 192675) 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 [email protected][email protected] SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. (SBN 166977) Nicole N. Coon, Esq. (SBN 286283) 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected][email protected] UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 71075) 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
)))))))))))))) )
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen) CLASS ACTION
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February 2, 2017 TIME: 1:30 p.m. CTRM: 5
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
TO: ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 2, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter can be heard, in Courtroom No. 5 in the above entitled courthouse located at Phillip Burton
Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102,
Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move the Court pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order finally approving the California Class Action Settlement
Agreement as fair, adequate, and reasonable. Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) does not
oppose this Motion.
Said Motion shall be based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
Points & Authorities filed herewith, supporting Declarations of Stanley D. Saltzman, Carolyn Hunt
Cottrell, and Stephen Gomez (of Simpluris, Inc.), the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation entered into
by the Parties and previously submitted at Docket No. 70-2, and upon such further evidence, both
documentary and oral, as may be presented at the hearing of said motion.
DATED: December 29, 2016 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
By: /s/ William A. Baird
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
II. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN DUTIFULLY ADHERED TO AND SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT. ..................................................................................... 3
A. Dissemination of Notice Packets .............................................................................. 3
B. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Enhancement Awards ......... 4
C. There Are No Filed Objections to the Settlement and Only Six (6) Valid Exclusion Requests Have Been Received ................................................................. 4
D. Challenges to Employment History/Information Requests....................................... 4
E. Potential Additional Class Members ......................................................................... 4
III. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ............................................................................................... 5
A. Maximum Settlement Amount .................................................................................. 5
B. Net Settlement Amount ............................................................................................. 5
C. Payments From the Net Settlement Amount to California Class Members.............. 6
D. Distribution of Settlement Payments ........................................................................ 6
E. Attorney Fees and Expenses ..................................................................................... 6
F. Enhancement Awards for Plaintiffs .......................................................................... 6
G. PAGA Payment ......................................................................................................... 7
H. Settlement Administration Costs .............................................................................. 7
IV. THE SETTLEMENT MEETS, AND EXCEEDS, THE STANDARDS FOR FINAL APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................... 8
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 11
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ............................................................................. 9
Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................... 8
Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., 2013 WL 3013867 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................ 11
Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................... 11
H&R Block Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 9
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ 8, 9
Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 1148 (11th Cir.1983) .......................................................................... 5
In re Am. Bank Note Holographics, Inc., 127 F.Supp.2d 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ........................................................................... 4
In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litigation, 789 F.Supp.2d 935 (N.D.Ill.2011) .............................................................................. 5
In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F. 3d 667 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 2, 8
In re MRV Communs., Inc. Derivative Litig., 2013 WL 2897874 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................ 10
In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123298 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................... 11
Joel A. v. Giuliani, 218 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 8
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc. 541 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................... 4
Morey v. Louis Vuitton N. Am., Inc., 2014 WL 109194 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................... 10
Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm. of City and County of San Francisco, 688 F. 2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................... 8
Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 9
OTHER AUTHORITIES
4 Newberg § 11.41 p. 87 ...................................................................................................... 11
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 5 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Mistras Group, Inc.
(“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) present this proposed Settlement – achieved after an extensive
mediation and additional negotiations – for Final Approval with respect to the California Class. On
October 11, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement as to the Rule 23 California
Class Action, and further granted Final Approval of the Settlement as to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) Class. (Docket No. 83). The entirety of the Settlement involves a non-reversionary
$6,000,000 settlement (“Settlement”) for the benefit of the California Class and the nationwide FLSA
Class.
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes are pleased to inform the Court that as of this filing date,
which is a full week following the expiration of the objection and opt-out deadline, the following Notice
data has been compiled by the Settlement Administrator, which has filed the declaration of Stephen
Gomez herewith:
The Settlement Administrator has mailed 1,324 Notice Packets to the California Class Members;
Only 9 of these Notice Packets have to date been returned as undeliverable;1
No objections have been received to any portion of the Settlement, including the Enhancement
Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Fee and Expense Award to Class Counsel;
The Settlement Administrator has received only 6 valid exclusion requests, and an additional 6
deficient requests have been received, which are being followed up on by the Settlement
Administrator.
This Settlement requires Defendant to pay $6,000,000 to a California Class and a FLSA Class,
which together consist of 5,150 Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors. Importantly, the entire
$6,000,000 will be paid out and thus, absolutely no funds will revert to the Defendant. Furthermore,
each Class Member in both the California and FLSA Classes will receive his or her share without the
need to submit a claim form.
1 Only 9 notice packets came back as undeliverable. The Claims administrator intends to use additional searching methods in order to find good addresses for these nine class members.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 6 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
As stated above, the preliminary settlement approval motion sought two differing orders, both of
which were granted by the Court. The first order sought and granted was the preliminary approval of the
California Rule 23 Class Action Settlement, which in turn would then trigger the mailing of Notice to
the California Class Members; and the second order sought and granted was the Final Approval of the
FLSA collective action settlement. As of this time, and consistent with the Court’s order granting
preliminary approval of the California claims, the claims administrator has disseminated the required
Notice to the Rule 23 California Class Members. The success of the Notice program is amply set forth
herein and in the declaration of Stephen Gomez filed herewith.
No later than fourteen (14) calendar days following the Effective Date of the Settlement with
regard to the California Rule 23 Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will then be
empowered to mail the settlement checks to the California Class Members. Fifteen (15) calendar days
following the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Administrator will also be empowered to mail the
settlement checks to the FLSA collective action members, who will then have the opportunity to elect to
either cash the checks containing the appropriate “opt-in” and release language thereon, or to elect not to
do so and thus retain their FLSA rights. This all conforms to the Court’s dual approval orders issued in
Docket No. 83, and with the Court’s Supplemental Order on Preliminary Approval Regarding Notice
and Final Approval Hearing Dates and Deadlines. (Docket No. 85, dated October 19, 2016).
An objective evaluation of the Settlement confirms that the relief negotiated on behalf of the
California Class is fair, adequate, and reasonable. In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F. 3d 667, 674-75 (9th
Cir. 2008)(a class settlement may be approved if it is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.”). The Parties
negotiated the Settlement at arm’s length under the guidance of Mr. Mark Rudy, a well-regarded
mediator specializing in resolving wage and hour class actions. Mr. Rudy stewarded the Parties through
a mediation that lasted over ten (10) hours on one day and then through several additional weeks of
negotiations that involved substantial back and forth between the Parties until a settlement was
eventually reached. What’s more, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion and Plaintiffs’
Fee Motion, the case was thoroughly investigated and litigated prior to the Parties delving into
settlement discussions. (Docket Nos. 70-1, Declaration of Stanley Saltzman in Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and Collective Action Settlement (“Saltzman Decl.”
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 7 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
¶¶ 7-11); and 86).2
The response of the California Settlement Class Members supports the Court’s finding at
Preliminary Approval that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. No California Class Member
has objected to the Settlement after receiving the requisite Notice thereof. Further of the 1,324 persons
on the class list, of which all but 9 were successfully mailed the notice, only 6 valid exclusion requests
to the Settlement have been received, and an additional 6 deficient such requests have been received,
which are being followed up on by the Settlement Administrator. (Declaration of Stephen Gomez,
Project Manager, Simpluris, “Gomez Decl.” at ¶15).
In short, the Settlement meets the criteria for Final Approval as it is well within the range of what
would be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs now respectfully request that the Court take the
final step in the approval process by granting the requested Final Approval of the California Class
Action Settlement.
II. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN DUTIFULLY ADHERED TO AND
SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT.
A. Dissemination of Notice Packets
As noted above, Preliminary Approval was granted on October 11, 2016. At that time, the Court
appointed Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator has complied with
this Court’s orders concerning dissemination of the Notice Packet by regular mail. (Gomez Decl. ¶¶ 5-
15). In addition, the Settlement Administrator operated a toll-free telephone number for Class Members
to call with inquiries concerning the Settlement and operated a website that contained the Settlement
details along with relevant documents. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 4). The Settlement Administrator has provided
the Court with a full report of its activities as set forth in the contemporaneously filed declaration of
Stephen Gomez.
/ / /
2 Consistent with the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance on Class Action Settlements, counsel have avoided re-stating in full matters previously dealt with in either the previously filed Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Enhancement Awards, (Docket No. 86) and/or the prior Motion for Preliminary Approval (Docket No. 70).
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 8 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
B. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Enhancement Awards
Pursuant to this Court’s order granting Preliminary Approval, Class Counsel were ordered to file
their motion for a Fee and Expense Award, and for Enhancement Awards for the representative
Plaintiffs, by no later than two weeks before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline of December 22, 2016.
That motion was timely filed on December 6, 2016. (Docket No. 86). Additionally, the motion was
posted to the Case website maintained by Simpluris, to enable all the Class Members to easily review
the same, should they so desire. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 4).
C. There Are No Filed Objections to the Settlement and Only Six (6) Valid Exclusion
Requests Have Been Received
The Ninth Circuit and other federal courts have made clear that the number or percentage of
class members who object to or opt out of the settlement is a factor of great significance. See Mandujano
v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc. 541 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1976); see also In re Am. Bank Note
Holographics, Inc., 127 F.Supp.2d 418, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“It is well settled that the reaction of the
class to the settlement is perhaps the most significant factor to be weighed in considering its
adequacy.”).
Here, both the Objection Deadline and the Exclusion Deadline were December 22, 2016. As of
the date of this motion, a full one week thereafter, no objections have been filed with the Court.
Additionally, only the 6 previously alluded to Exclusion Requests have been received by the Settlement
Administrator. An additional 6 deficient exclusions have been received and are being followed up on.
Counsel will file a supplemental report with respect to these requests at least one week prior to the final
approval hearing date. (Gomez Decl. ¶¶ 15-17).
D. Challenges to Employment History/Information Requests
As of this date, Simpluris has received two (2) disputes of work weeks submitted by Class
Members through the California Class Form. After reviewing both disputes, it was determined that both
were invalid and that Defendant’s records remained correct. (Gomez Decl. ¶17).
E. Potential Additional Class Members
As of this date, Simpluris has been contacted by twenty-four (24) individuals who inquired
about being part of the California Class. Simpluris forwarded their information to Defense Counsel. As
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 9 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
of the date of this declaration, Simpluris has been advised by Defendant’s counsel that Defendant has
concluded that while many of the twenty four individuals were properly excluded from the class, some
of them may have worked as either an examiner or a technician at some point during the class period.
This investigation is ongoing as of this date, and therefore this also will be further updated at the time of
the submission of the Supplemental Declaration one week prior to the Final Approval Hearing. ( Gomez
Decl. ¶14).
III. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
As described in the motion for Preliminary Approval, the basic Settlement terms are as follows:
A. Maximum Settlement Amount
The Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) that Defendant will pay is Six Million Dollars
($6,000,000). This sum includes payments made to Class Members, Enhancement Awards to Plaintiffs,
Administration Costs, a Fee and Expense Award, Employee Taxes, and a PAGA Payment. No portion
of the MSA will revert to Defendant under any circumstance. (Docket No. 70-1; Saltzman Decl. ¶ 17).
B. Net Settlement Amount
The Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) is comprised of the funds remaining from the MSA,
following deductions of the Court-approved awards for the following items: (1) the Administration
Costs,3 ( 2) the Fee and Expense Award (not to exceed $2,000,000 and actual costs, which currently total
$44,575.02, respectively), (3) the Enhancement Awards to Plaintiffs (not to exceed $8,500.00 in total),
and (4) the PAGA Payment ($20,000.00). (Docket No. 70-1; Saltzman Decl. ¶ 24).
The NSA is estimated to be $3,892,924.98. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 19). 65% of the NSA will be
allocated to the California Class Fund and 35% will be allocated to the FLSA Class Fund. The funds
awarded will be distributed to Settlement Class Members on a proportional basis based on the amount of
weeks a Class Member worked (Docket No. 70-1; Saltzman Decl. ¶ 25).4 This allocation, including the
California Rule 23/FLSA division, was addressed in full in Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Brief filed on
3 The Claims Administration costs totaled $39,000. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 22). 4 A class action settlement need not benefit all class members equally. Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1148 (11th Cir.1983); In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litigation, 789 F.Supp.2d 935, 979–80, (N.D.Ill.2011). Unequal allocations can be based on legitimate considerations. Holmes, 706 F.2d at 1148; In re AT & T, 789 F.Supp.2d at 979–80.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 10 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
August 9, 2016, at pages 8 – 10 thereof, (Docket No. 72) and was approved in the Court’s Order dated
October 11, 2016, Docket No. 83, at pages 16 – 17 thereof.
C. Payments From the Net Settlement Amount to California Class Members
The average estimated payouts for the California Class Members is $1,921.21, and the highest
estimated payment is $6,101.17. For those persons receiving both a California payment and an FLSA
payment, the average estimated payment is $2,498.75, and the highest estimated payment is $6,889.62.
(Gomez Decl. ¶ 21).
D. Distribution of Settlement Payments
The California Class Members are not required under the Settlement to submit claim forms in
order to receive compensation. Rather, they will automatically receive their settlement payments after
the Effective Date of the Settlement. The only exception would be for the few California Class Members
who timely exclude themselves from the Settlement. As mentioned, only 6 such valid exclusion requests
have been submitted as of the date of the filing of this motion, which is a full week following the
expiration of the objection/exclusion deadline. (Gomez Decl. ¶¶ 15-17).
E. Attorney Fees and Expenses
As discussed in further detail in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Enhancement
Awards, timely filed on December 6, 2016 (Docket No.86), and subject to Court approval, the Parties
allocated thirty three and one-third percent (33.33%) of the MSA as the Fee Award to Plaintiffs’
Counsel and $44,575.02 as the Expense Award to reimburse Plaintiffs’ Counsel for the actual costs they
incurred in pursuing this Action.
F. Enhancement Awards for Plaintiffs
An Enhancement Award of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) is requested for
Plaintiff Edgar Viceral, and a payment of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) is requested for Plaintiff
David Krueger, subject to the approval of the Court. These Enhancement Awards are for their roles in
initiating this Action and acting as the Class Representatives, for services provided in furtherance of this
Action, for the risks undertaken for payment of costs in the event this Action was unsuccessful, for any
stigma they may suffer going forward due to the public information available via the internet of their
having filed a class action against an employer, and for their agreement to provide a release of claims.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 11 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
Counsel is requesting a larger amount for Mr. Viceral as the settlement provides for a full general
release of all of his claims, including a full 1542 waiver, while Mr. Krueger is requesting a lesser
amount and retaining his right to continue his previously filed separate lawsuit for other claims not
included in the class action. This is more fully addressed in the separately filed motion for Fees, Costs
and Enhancement Awards, at Docket No. 86, including the respective declarations of the two
Representative Plaintiffs, filed therewith, at Docket Nos. 89and 90.
G. PAGA Payment
The Settlement allocates Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) to settle the portion of the
case brought under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).
Seventy-Five percent (75%) of the total PAGA Payment, which amounts to Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000.00), will be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The remainder of
the PAGA payment, twenty-five percent (25%) or Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), shall be included
in the California Class Fund. (Docket No. 70-1; Saltzman Decl. ¶ 20). This element of the Settlement
Agreement was also the subject of full supplemental briefing before the Court, within the previously
alluded to Joint Supplemental Brief dated August 9, 2016, Docket No. 72, at pages 15 – 17 thereof, and
again in the entire Second Joint Supplemental Brief filed on August 30, 2016, Docket No. 82, at pages 1
– 7 thereof. Following this extensive briefing, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed
allocation of $20,000.00, in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Docket 83, filed on October 11,
2016, and specifically at pages 13 – 16 thereof.
Since the Approval Order issued by the Court, Notice has been disseminated to all the California
Class Members, plus to the Attorney General’s office in California in the context of the CAFA notice
mailings, (Exhibit C to the first Joint Supplemental Brief found at Docket 72-1), and no comments or
objections to this aspect of the settlement have been received.
H. Settlement Administration Costs
As discussed in Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion, Plaintiffs sought and received “not to
exceed” bids for the Settlement Administration Costs, which Simpluris then agreed to undertake for the
sum of $50,000. (Docket No. 70-1; Saltzman Decl. ¶ 22). The actual costs of the settlement
administration turned out to be less and thus the Settlement Administrator has agreed to accept $39,000
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 12 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
as compensation in full for the services provided. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 22).
IV. THE SETTLEMENT MEETS, AND EXCEEDS, THE STANDARDS FOR FINAL
APPROVAL
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that any compromise of a class action must
receive Court approval. The Court has broad discretion to grant such approval and should do so where
the proposed settlement is “fair, adequate, reasonable, and not a product of collusion.” Hanlon v.
Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); Joel A. v. Giuliani, 218 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir.
2000). In determining whether a proposed settlement should be approved, the Ninth Circuit has a
“strong judicial policy that favors settlement, particularly where complex class action litigation is
concerned.” In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Class Plaintiffs
v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)).
There is no single standard for determining whether any given settlement is fair. “Ultimately the
district court’s determination is . . . ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough
justice.’” Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm. of City and County of San Francisco, 688 F. 2d
615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). In making its determination, the Court should weigh the benefits that the
settlement will realize for the class against the uncertainty of litigation and the possibility that the class
members would obtain no relief in the absence of a settlement. See, Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998) (“...it is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance
of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlements.”)
Here, Plaintiffs brought this class and collective action to secure important workplace protections
for the Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors employed by the Defendant in California and across the
country, and have successfully secured a proposed Settlement that provides substantial benefits for them.
The fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of any class action settlement depends on “the relative
strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the
risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent
of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; ... and the
reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., supra, at 1026. In this
case, all standards for approval are met, and the more complete discussion of the fairness of the
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 13 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
Settlement presented in the Motion for Preliminary Approval applies equally here, and is respectfully
referred to herein. (Docket No. 70.)
Arms-Length Negotiation - The Ninth Circuit has shown longstanding support of settlements
reached through arm’s length negotiation by capable opponents. In Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp.,
563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit expressly opined that courts should defer to the “private
consensual decision of the [settling] parties.” Id. at 965 (citing Hanlon, at 1027). The primary reason for
deferring to such settlements is the experience of counsel and the participation of a neutral, both of
which factors are present here. The Rodriguez court “put a good deal of stock in the product of an
arm’s-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution, and have never prescribed a particular formula by
which that outcome must be tested.” Rodriguez, at 965 (citations omitted). As the Court explained, “In
reality, parties, counsel, mediators, and district judges naturally arrive at a reasonable range for
settlements by considering the likelihood of a plaintiffs’ or defense verdict, the potential recovery, and
the chances of obtaining it, discounted to present value.” “A presumption of fairness, adequacy, and
reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm’s length negotiations between
experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.” H&R Block Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005); see also, Kirkorian v. Borelli, 695 F.Supp. 446, 451 (N.D. Cal. 1988)
(opinion of experienced counsel is entitled to considerable weight); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp.
610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979) (recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of
reasonableness).
The Settlement Has No Obvious Deficiencies - The proposed Settlement has no obvious
deficiencies. The fact that no objections have been filed and so few Exclusions have been requested
from Class Members is a testament to how favorably this Settlement has been received by the Class
Members. Furthermore, the proposed Settlement is the product of extensive discovery (both formal and
informal) and the involvement of an extremely experienced Mediator. (Docket No. 70-1 Saltzman Decl.
¶¶ 7-14). In short, full and complete arm's-length negotiations have occurred. Throughout this
litigation, the Parties have vigorously asserted their respective positions. Defendant has been
continuously represented by very capable counsel who have taken every opportunity to develop all
aspects of their defenses. With the benefit of the significant exploration of the facts and law during the
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 14 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
pleading stage as well as the prosecution and discovery phase of the case, Class Counsel was able to
fully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Accordingly, by the time the Settlement was
reached, both Parties were capable of being fully informed in regard to all aspects of the case. (Id.).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel submit that the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and is in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the
Class Members. Defendant has also expended substantial amounts of time, energy and resources in
connection with the litigation and the negotiation of the settlement now before the Court, and unless this
Settlement is approved, will be required to continue to incur further fees, plus ongoing time, energy and
resources. Defendant has, therefore, agreed to settle in the manner and upon the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
The Respective Risks of Continued Litigation - Throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs have
argued that Defendant should be liable for all claims raised in the Complaint. Defendant, on the other
hand, has steadfastly maintained that Class Members did not work off the clock, received all required
meal and rest breaks, and that they were properly compensated for all hours worked. In furtherance of
its defense, Defendant assembled over 500 declarations from class members to oppose this action.
Plaintiffs were cognizant of the significant hurdles they would have had to overcome in order to obtain
and maintain class status, not just in terms of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 but
also those applicable to collective actions under the FLSA. Even if Plaintiffs had been successful at
certification, successfully proving the merits of the underlying claims was not certain. This Settlement
represents a well-crafted compromise of the divergent positions of the Parties that provides substantial
benefits for the Class Members. Each side evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of their case and
independently came to the conclusion that this Settlement represents a responsible means of addressing
Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses.
The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation - Another factor considered by
courts at the final approval phase is the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation. Morey
v. Louis Vuitton N. Am., Inc., 2014 WL 109194, *5 (S.D. Cal. 2014); In re MRV Communs., Inc.
Derivative Litig., 2013 WL 2897874, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2013). In applying this factor, the Court should
weigh the benefits of the settlement against the expense and delay involved in achieving an equivalent or
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 15 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
even more favorable result at trial. Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 2010 WL 9013059, *5 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“Settlement avoids the complexity, delay, risk and expense of continuing with the litigation and will
produce a prompt, certain, and substantial recovery for the Plaintiff class.” Eddings v. Health Net, Inc.,
No. CV 10-1744-JST RZX, 2013 WL 3013867, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Here, litigating the case through
to trial would have been expensive, involved substantial risk and equally substantial uncertainty, and
would not have been fully resolved for some time. In contrast, the proposed settlement provides
significant and certain compensation that is available now as opposed to potentially and hypothetically
sometime in the distance future.
Additionally, employment cases (including wage and hour cases) can be expensive and time-
consuming to prosecute. Given the uncertainty of certification, there was also the added risk that if class
and collective action status was not achieved and maintained, that the alternative – i.e., individual
litigation – would tax private and judicial resources over a period of years. As such, the Settlement in
this case is consistent with the “overriding public interest in settling and quieting litigation” that is
“particularly true in class action suits” and thus, provides another reason to approve the Settlement.
Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 2014 WL 439006, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014); In re Toyota
Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist.
By: /s/ William A. Baird Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the California Settlement Class and FLSA Settlement Class
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 16 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
)))))))))))))) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen) CLASS ACTION
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS; AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DATE: February 2, 2017 TIME: 1:30 p.m. CTRM: 5
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motions for Final Approval of the California Class Action Settlement and
Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards, filed by Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger
(“Plaintiffs”) in the matter of Viceral and Krueger, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:115-
cv-02198-EMC, came on for hearing regularly in Courtroom 5 of the above captioned court, the
Honorable Edward M. Chen presiding, on February 2, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Appearing at the hearing was
counsel for Littler Mendelson, P.C. for Defendant and counsel for Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
Wotkyns LLP, and Marlin & Saltzman, LLP on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes.
Having reviewed the papers and documents presented, having heard the statements of counsel,
having considered the matter, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement found
at Docket No. 70-2 (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”) as though fully set forth herein, and all
terms defined therein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the California Settlement Class Members
asserted in this proceeding, personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and Defendant, and subject matter
jurisdiction to approve the Settlement.
3. The Court hereby approves the settlement terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and further finds that
Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of the California
Class Action Settlement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. On October 11, 2016, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement, and granting Final Approval therein
to settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) Settlement Agreement requested therein. At that
time, the Court directed the Parties to file an updated proposed order setting forth all relevant dates and
deadlines following the Court’s Order. (Docket. No. 83). On October 19, 2016, the Court approved the
updated order that set forth all dates and deadlines triggered by the Court’s Order on October 11, 2016.
(Docket. No. 85).
5. In the Order on October 11, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the California Class
for Settlement purposes. The Court hereby grants final certification approval for settlement purposes, to
the California Class, as follows:
California Class: The California Class is defined as all current and former hourly, non-exempt Technicians, Inspectors, and Examiners employed by Defendant in California at any time between April 10, 2011 up through the date of Final Approval.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
6. As to the California Class, the Court hereby finds that: (1) the settlement amount is fair
and reasonable to the California Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further
litigation relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) significant
informal discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the
Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement at this time
will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the
litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and non-
collusive negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Stipulation of
Settlement was entered into in good faith.
7. Notice given to the California Class Members was reasonably calculated under the
circumstances to apprise the Class of the pendency of this class action, of all material elements of
the proposed Settlement, and of their opportunity to exclude themselves from, object to, or comment
on the Settlement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. The notice was reasonable and the
best notice practicable under the circumstances. A reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the
members of the Class to participate in this hearing. Accordingly, this Court hereby finds that notice
program described in the Settlement Agreement and completed by the Settlement Administrator
complied fully with the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all other
applicable laws.
8. All California Settlement Class Members (i.e. those who have not exercised their right to
opt out of the Settlement) are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment and by the Settlement
embodied therein, including the releases provided for in the Settlement and this Final Approval Order
and Judgment. As of the Effective Date of Settlement, by operation of the entry of this Final Approval
Order and Judgment, each member of the Settlement Class, including Plaintiffs, shall be deemed to have
fully released, waived, relinquished and discharged, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all Released
Claims that he or she may have against the Releasees.
9. California Class Member Release: "California Class Released Claims" means all
claims, demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action that were or could have been asserted in the
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
lawsuit (whether in tort, contract, or otherwise) for violation of the California Labor Code, the California
Business & Professions Code, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders or any similar state or federal law, including but not
limited to those based in any part on the FLSA, whether for unpaid wages, economic damages, non-
economic damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, restitution, penalties, other monies, or other
relief arising out of, relating to, or in connection with any facts and/or claims pled in the class action
complaints, filed by Edgar Viceral and/or David Krueger, and/or in the Consolidated First Amended
Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit, which are or could be the basis of claims that
Defendant failed to provide all wages and overtime wages due, failed to pay the minimum wage, failed
to provide timely or accurate final paychecks, failed to timely pay compensation, engaged in
recordkeeping violations, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to provide meal
breaks, failed to authorize and permit rest breaks, and/or engaged in unfair business practices based on
the foregoing violations, at any times during the California Class Period.
10. Neither this Settlement nor this Final Approval Order and Judgment is an admission
of liability, fault, or wrongdoing by Defendant, or any of the Releasees, nor a finding of the validity
of any claims in the Action or any violation of law. Neither this Final Approval Order and Judgment,
the Settlement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement
is, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission or concession by or against Defendant, or
any of the Releasees, of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. Neither this Final Approval
Order and Judgment, any term or provision of the Settlement, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings
connected with it, shall be offered or received in evidence in any pending or future civil, criminal or
administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings that may be necessary to consummate
or enforce the Settlement; however, Defendant or any Releasee may use the Settlement and/or any
related document, in any action that may be brought against them in order to support a defense or
counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement,
judgment bar or reduction, accord and satisfaction, or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue
preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
11. The Court hereby finds the Individual Settlement Payments provided for under the
Settlement to be fair and reasonable in light of all the circumstances. The Court, therefore, orders the
calculations and the payments to be made and administered in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement.
12. The request for settlement administration costs in the amount of $____________ is
hereby granted and shall be paid to the Settlement Administrator, Simpluris, pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
13. The Settlement allocates Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) to settle the portion of
the case brought under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).
Seventy-Five percent (75%) of the total PAGA Payment, Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) will be
paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The remainder of the PAGA payment,
twenty-five percent (25%) or Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), shall be included in the California
Class Fund. The Court hereby approves the above allocation and apportionment.
14. The Court further finally approves Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees of one-
third of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $2,000,000. This amount is justified under the common
fund doctrine, the range of awards ordered in this District and Circuit, the excellent results obtained,
substantial risk borne by Class Counsel in litigating this matter, the high degree of skill and quality of
work performed, financial burden imposed by the contingency basis of Class Counsel’ representation of
Plaintiff and the Class Members, and additional work required of them to bring this Settlement to
conclusion. The Court finds the fees award further supported by the lodestar crosscheck, whereby it
finds that Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and United
Employees Law Group’s hourly rates are reasonable, the estimated hours expended are reasonable. The
Court finally approves Class Counsel’s request for actual costs in the amount of $44,575.02.
15. Aside from the costs awarded herein or in said order on Fees, Costs and Enhancement
Awards, no other costs, fees or other relief shall be awarded, either against Defendant or related persons
or entities, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, or from the award to the Settlement Classes.
/ / /
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 5 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action
Settlement; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of JudgmentCASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
16. The Court hereby reaffirms its appointment of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and United Employees Law Group, as Counsel for the
California Class, and Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger, as Class Representatives for the
California Class.
17. The Court further orders that the timeline set forth for the administration of the settlement
at Docket No. 85 shall be followed.
18. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and this Court’s prior Order Granting
Final Approval of the FLSA Settlement (Docket No. 83), the instant action is hereby dismissed, with
prejudice, subject to Paragraph 19 and 20 below.
19. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court
reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties to the Settlement, including Defendant
and Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce the Settlement in
accordance with its terms for the mutual benefit of the parties.
20. Judgment is entered in accordance with the findings in this Order, and the Order of Final
Approval as to the FLSA Settlement. This Judgment is the Final Judgment in the suit as to all Settlement
Class Members who have (1) not excluded himself/herself from the Settlement or (2) in the case of
FLSA Class Members, those who have elected not to opt into the settlement by cashing their settlement
check. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the Clerk of the Court
to enter Judgment immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ___________________ ___________________________________ Hon. Edward M. Chen United States District Judge
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 6 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 - [Proposed] Judgment
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
CASE NO. 13:15-CV-02198-EMC (Hon. Edward M. Chen)
CLASS ACTION
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-2 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 - [Proposed] Judgment
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
On this ____ day of February, 2017, it is HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 58 AS FOLLOWS:
(1) On February ___, 2017, this Court entered the Order Granting Final Approval of
California Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and
Enhancement Awards (the “Final Approval Order”).
(2) For the reasons stated in the above-referenced Final Approval Order, judgment is entered
accordingly in this case, and the case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
(3) The Clerk shall file this Final Judgment on the docket of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:___________________ Hon. Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 92-2 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final ApprovalCase No. 3:15-Cv-02198-EMC
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN 192675) 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 [email protected][email protected] SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. (SBN 166977) Nicole N. Coon, Esq. (SBN 286283) 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected][email protected] UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 71075) 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
)))))))))))))) ) )
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen)
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF STAN SALTZMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
DATE: February 2, 2017 TIME: 1:30 p.m. CTRM: 5
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 93 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final ApprovalCase No. 3:15-Cv-02198-EMC
I, Stan Saltzman, Esq., declare as follows:
I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and in this United States
District Court. I am a founding Partner of Marlin & Saltzman, LLP attorneys of record for Plaintiffs. I
make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class
Action Settlement (“Motion”). I testify to the foregoing facts of my own personal knowledge and, if
called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto under oath.
THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE
1. In support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, Plaintiffs’ cite my declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Approval. (Docket No. 70-1). This declaration, along with the Declaration of
Co-Counsel Carolyn Hunt Cottrell filed in connection with this Motion, extensively lays out the terms of
the Settlement, the events leading up to it, and the events that occurred in this action thereafter. Further,
the declaration I filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion lays out additional information including my
firm’s extensive experience and history related to class action litigation. (Docket No. 88). Rather than
repeat those facts here, I incorporate them by reference.
2. For the many reasons set forth at preliminary approval, the settlement was felt by class
counsel to represent a fair and equitable result for the case, bearing in mind both the risks and benefits of
potential further litigation. Indeed, the final Settlement is the product of extensive negotiations between
the Parties conducted at arms-length and is free from collusion. The Parties on both sides are represented
by experienced class action attorneys with specialized knowledge of both class action and employment
law. In order to reach the final Settlement, the Parties debated, discussed, and resolved many difficult
legal and factual issues. Moreover, during the process the Parties were both required to make reasonable
compromises in light of the facts, issues, and risks presented in this Action. In particular, in reaching the
Settlement, Class Counsel considered the uncertainty and risks of further litigation, and the difficulties
inherent in such litigation. Class Counsel also considered the burdens of proof necessary to achieve
certification of the case, and then to establish liability against Defendant and to defeat its defenses. All
of these factors indicated that the best interests of the Class Members would be served by a settlement of
this Action in the manner and upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 93 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final ApprovalCase No. 3:15-Cv-02198-EMC
3. The average payout for a California class member is $1,921.21, and the highest estimated
payment is $6,101.17. For the FLSA Collective Action Members, the average estimated payment is
$270.37 and the highest estimated payment is $788.45. For those persons receiving both a California
payment and an FLSA payment, the average estimated payment is $2,498.75, and the highest estimated
payment is $6,889.62. As evidenced by lack of any objections to the settlement, and the extremely low
exclusion request rate (only 6 valid exclusions to date), the class members believe that these payouts are
real, tangible, and apparently appreciated.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the United States and of the State of
California that the forgoing is true and correct and to the best of my personal knowledge. This
declaration is executed on December 29, 2016, at Agoura Hills, California.
s/ Stanley D. Saltzman
Stanley D. Saltzman
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 93 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN 192675) MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 [email protected][email protected] Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN 166977) Nicole N. Coon (SBN 286283) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected][email protected] Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 71075) UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
)))))))))))))) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen) CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February 2, 2017
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
CTRM: 5
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 94 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL
I, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, declare:
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called upon as a
witness, I could and would testify competently as to these facts.
2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of
California Class Action Settlement.
QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, AND EXPERTISE
3. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California (No. 166977). I am a
member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I am admitted to the United States District
Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California. I am a member of
the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.
4. I am a partner at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP (“SWCKW”). SWCKW
specializes in class action litigation in state and federal court.
5. SWCKW is regarded as one of the leading private plaintiff’s firms in wage and hour class
actions and employment class actions.
6. SWCKW has acted or is acting as class counsel in numerous cases. A partial list of cases
which have been certified and/or settled as class actions includes: Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint Nextel
Corp. et al., (Case No. 3:13-cv-04357-VC) (Northern District of California) (final approval of class
and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime,
under federal and California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for
necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements); Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-
2015-00180822 (Sacramento Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to
provide meal and rest breaks and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); Jeter-Polk,
et al. v. Casual Male Store, LLC, et al., (Case No. 5:14-CV-00891) (Central District of California)
(final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, unpaid wages and waiting time
penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements); Meza, et al. v. S.S. Skikos, Inc., et al.,
(Case No. 15-cv-01889-TEH) (Northern District of California) (final approval of class and
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 94 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime,
under federal and California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for
necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements); Molina, et al. v. Railworks Track Systems, Inc., (Case No.
BCV-15-10135) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure
to provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, off-the-clocker work, failure to
pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements);
Allen, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al., (Case No. 5:13-cv-01659) (Northern District of
California) (settlement between FLSA Plaintiffs and Defendant to provide relief to affected
employees); Barrera v. Radix Cable Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. CIV 1100505) (Marin County
Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks
to, off-the-clock work by, failure to provide overtime compensation to, failure to reimburse
business expenditures to, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements to retention specialists working for cable companies); Glass
Dimensions, Inc., et al. v. State Street Corp. et al., (Case No. 1:10-cv-10588) (District of
Massachusetts) (final approval of class action settlement for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and
self-dealing in violation of ERISA); Friend, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, (Case No. 3:07-
052222) (Northern District of California) (settlement of claims that rental car company
misclassified non-exempt employees, failed to pay wages, failed to pay premium pay, and failed to
provide meal periods and rest periods); Hollands v. Lincare, Inc., et al., (Case No. CGC-07-
465052) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for
overtime pay, off-the-clock work, unreimbursed expenses, and other wage and hour claims on
behalf of a class of center managers); Jantz, et al. v. Colvin, (Case No. 531-2006-00276X) (In the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office) (final approval of class action
settlement for the denial of promotions based on targeted disabilities); Shemaria v. County of
Marin, (Case No. CV 082718) (Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action
settlement on behalf of a class of individuals with mobility disabilities denied access to various
facilities owned, operated, and/or maintained by the County of Marin); Perez, et al. v. First
American Title Ins. Co., (Case No. 2:08-cv-01184) (District of Arizona) (final approval of class
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 94 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
action settlement in action challenging unfair discrimination by title insurance company); Perez v.
Rue21, Inc., et al., (Case No. CISCV167815) (Santa Cruz County Superior Court) (final approval
of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work
performed by, a class of retail employees); Sosa, et al. v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., et al.,
(Case No. RG 08424366) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action
settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a
class of ice cream manufacturing employees); Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. (Case Nos.
3:12-cv-04137 and 4:13-cv-03091) (Northern District of California) (certified class action on behalf
of delivery drivers allegedly misclassified as independent contractors); Choul, et al. v. Nebraska
Beef, Ltd. (Case Nos. 8:08-cv-90, 8:08-cv-99) (District of Nebraska) (final approval of class action
settlement for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-
line employees of meat-packing plant); Morales v. Farmland Foods, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-cv-504)
(District of Nebraska) (FLSA certification for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide
overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Barlow, et al. v. PRN
Ambulance Inc. (Case No. BC396728) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of
class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to and for off-the-clock work by
certified emergency medical technicians); Espinosa, et al. v. National Beef, et al. (Case No.
ECU0467) (Imperial Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock
work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-
packing plant); Wolfe, et al. v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, et al. (Case Nos. CGC-08-
479518 and CGC-09-489635) (San Francisco Superior Court) (final approval of class action
settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work by, employees
at check cashing stores); Carlson v. eHarmony (Case No. BC371958) (Los Angeles County
Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of gays and lesbians who were
denied use of eHarmony); Salcido v. Cargill (Case Nos. 1:07-CV-01347-LJO-GSA,1:08-CV-
00605-LJO-GSA) (Eastern District of California) (final approval of class action settlement for off-
the-clock work by production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Elkin v. Six Flags (Case No.
BC342633) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for
missed meal and rest periods on behalf of hourly workers at Six Flags amusement parks); Jimenez
Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 94 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC
v. Perot Systems Corp. (Case No. RG07335321) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval
of class action settlement for misclassification of hospital clerical workers); Chau v. CVS RX
Services, Inc. (Case No. BC349224) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class
action settlement for failure to pay overtime to CVS pharmacists); Reed v. CALSTAR (Case No.
RG04155105) (Alameda County Superior Court) (certified class action on behalf of flight nurses);
National Federation of the Blind v. Target (Case No. C 06-01802 MHP) (N.D. Cal.) (certified class
action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have tried to access
Target.com); Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2004 WL 2370633) (N.D. Cal.) (certified
national class action on behalf of deaf employees of UPS); Satchell v. FedEx Express, Inc. (Case