Wright v. LinkUs Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:2007cv01347 - Document 113 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/3/2010 ORDERING 97 The Court, for purposes of this Order, ADOPTS the definitions of "Class" and "Class Members"; The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Class Members, exc ept for those who have timely opted out of the Class;, and has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the Settlement, issue an award of attorneys fees and costs to Class Counsel and enhanc ement awards to the Class Representatives; and entering final judgment that dismisses the action with prejudice after all sums due and owing under the Settlement are paid and which will permanently bar all claims released by the Settlement except for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of those persons who did not submit a request to join the Class. The Class is certified. Based on the Motion for Final Approval and request for enhancement payments to the Class Representatives, which is uno pposed by Dfts, each Class Representative is awarded $5,000; Based on the materials submitted by Class Counsel in support of the request for an award of attorneys fees and costs, which is unopposed by Dfts, Class Counsel is awarded $625,000 as compensation and reimbursement for expenses. The Settlement monies shall be distributed as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. This Order and the Final Judgment permanently bars all Claims released by the Joint Stipulation of Settle ment; The Court dismisses the action on the merits and with prejudice and the Subclass One Released Claims and Subclass Two Released Claims as defined in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. The two persons who opted out of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement have not released any claims pursuant to this Order. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wright v. LinkUs Enterprises, Inc. Doc. 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 GABE WRIGHT and PAUL CROWLEY, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) LINKUS ENTERPRISES, INC., RFG ) CORPORATION, RIDGELINE SERVICES, ) INC., and PREMIER PERSONNEL and ) DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. 2:07-cv-01347-MCE-CMK ORDER ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final 21 Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, filed on 22 December 15, 2009 after the Court preliminarily approved the 23 parties’ Settlement on July 29, 2009 and thereafter directed that 24 notice be provided to class members concerning the proposed 25 Settlement. 26 Pursuant to the July 29, 2009 Preliminary Approval Order, 27 Notice was given to the Class by mailing a Notice and Claim Form on 28 or about September 16, 2009. The Notice advised Class Members of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the opportunity to object to the Joint Stipulation of Settlement 2 and/or Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and 3 costs and Class Representative enhancements, and of the opportunity 4 for Class Members to exclude themselves from the Class. 5 further provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Court’s 6 preliminary approval, that any objection to the Settlement had to 7 be submitted not later than November 2, 2009. 8 to unequivocally state that failure to comply with the deadline for 9 objection would constitute a waiver of any objection, and that such The Notice The Notice went on 10 failure would foreclose “any objection or appealing from any order 11 or judgment entered on the Settlement.” 12 received by the Court, Counsel, or Claims Administrator within the 13 relevant time period. 14 Counsel filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 15 Settlement and supporting papers, as well as a request for an award 16 of attorneys’ fees and costs. 17 motion. 18 No objections were Consequently, on December 15, 2009, Class Defendants have not opposed the Nonetheless, on January 21, 2009, nearly two months after the 19 time period for registering any objection expired, and just one 20 week before the scheduled hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for final 21 approval, counsel for a Nevada class member, Joe Valdez, filed 22 objections to the Settlement. 23 While Valdez’ counsel urges the Court to overlook the timeliness 24 issue on grounds that neither he nor his client knew about the 25 proposed Settlement until December 29, 2009, Valdez himself 26 presented no sworn declaration that he had not received the Notice 27 and Claim Form in September of 2009. 28 /// That objection is clearly tardy. 2 1 Moreover, and even more importantly, Valdez’ counsel admit that at 2 the very least he and his client knew about the pending Settlement 3 more than three weeks before the scheduled hearing, but failed to 4 file anything with the court until the very eve of final approval 5 despite that knowledge. 6 Valdez’ objection. That omission alone is enough to disregard 7 Irrespective of whether or not the Valdez objection is 8 considered, however, it is uncontroverted that the proposed 9 Settlement has been resoundingly supported by the remainder of the 10 Class. 11 (1,563) have submitted claims forms and have expressed their desire 12 to participate in the Settlement if approved by the Court. 13 two potential class members have opted out of the Settlement and 14 Mr. Valdez is the only person to have raised any objection. 15 Nearly 50 percent of the Class of some 3,404 individuals Only As pertinent case law has confirmed, “the absence of a large 16 number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a 17 strong presumption that the terms of the proposed settlement are 18 favorable to the class members.” 19 Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 20 presence of objecting members is a relevant factor, it is not 21 dispositive even when many class members object.” 22 v. City of Milwaukee, 588 F. Supp. 1004, 1022 (E.D. Wis. 1984), 23 citing Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 326 24 (7th Cir. 1980). 25 objections from significant numbers of class members. 26 also Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1983) (no 27 error where lower court approved settlement despite objection from 28 some 41 percent of class members). In re Omnivision Technologies, “While the League of Martin Indeed, courts have approved settlements despite 3 Id., see 1 Here, after having read and fully considered the terms of the 2 Joint Stipulation of Settlement, the Motion for Final Approval of 3 the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, the request for the Class 4 Representative enhancements, and the request for an award of 5 attorneys’ fees and costs and all other documents on file in this 6 matter, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, 7 and adequate. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 9 1. 10 The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts the definitions of “Class” and “Class Members” as follows” 11 “All individuals who did not opt out and who 12 from July 6, 2003 through July 29, 2009: (1) were 13 employed as satellite technicians in California, 14 Nevada or Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) were categorized 15 by LINKUS as PEO employees and who performed work 16 as a satellite technician through Premier 17 Personnel, RFG, or Ridgeline (and all fictitious 18 business names of those entities) for LINKUS. 19 Class Members are part of one or more Subclasses 20 which are defined below: 21 Subclass One: All individuals who, as of the 22 date of the Final Approval Hearing on the 23 Settlement have filed with the Court a claim form 24 consenting to join this action as a plaintiff 25 pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 261(b) of the Fair 26 Labor Standards Act, and who, between July 6, 2003 27 and July 29, 2009 were: 28 /// 4 1 (1) directly employed as satellite technicians in 2 California, Nevada or Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) were 3 categorized by LINKUS as PEO employees and who 4 performed work as a satellite technician LINKUS 5 through Premier Personnel, RFG, or Ridgeline (and 6 all fictitious business names of those entities). 7 Subclass Two: All individuals who, between 8 July 6, 2003 and July 29, 2009 were: (1) employed 9 as satellite technicians in California, Nevada or 10 Oregon by LINKUS; or (2) categorized by LINKUS as 11 PEO employees and who performed work for LINKUS as 12 a satellite technician through Premier Personnel, 13 RFG, or Ridgeline (and all fictitious business 14 names of those entities.” 15 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Class 16 Members, except for those who have timely opted out of the Class, 17 and has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, including, 18 without limitation, jurisdiction to (1) approve the Settlement, 19 (2) issue an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel and 20 enhancement awards to the Class Representatives; and (3) entering 21 final judgment that dismisses the action with prejudice after all 22 sums due and owing under the Settlement are paid and which will 23 permanently bar all claims released by the Settlement except for 24 claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of those persons who did 25 not submit a request to join the Class. 26 3. 27 /// 28 The Class is certified. /// 5 1 4. The Settlement is, after hearing, determined to be fair, 2 reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. It is, 3 therefore, approved. 4 Joint Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, 5 the Court specifically notes that the outcome of a trial on the 6 merits was by no means certain, the litigation involved highly 7 complex factual and legal issues, the Joint Stipulation of 8 Settlement was reached with the participation of a respected 9 mediator, and the monetary terms of the Settlement reflect With respect to the determination that the 10 substantial benefits to the Class. 11 to be entered pursuant to this Order, this action will be dismissed 12 with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs, except as set 13 forth herein. 14 provision, condition, and agreement of the Joint Stipulation of 15 Settlement are adopted, incorporated and made part of this Order 16 and Judgment, and shall be effective, implemented, and enforced as 17 provided in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 18 5. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, It is further ordered that each and every term, Based on the Motion for Final Approval and documents 19 submitted therewith, the Court finds that the distribution of the 20 Notice and Claim Form were materially implemented to all Class 21 Members in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 23(c)(2)(B), with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement 23 and the Preliminary Approval Order. 24 6. Based on the Motion for Final Approval and request for 25 enhancement payments to the Class Representatives, which is 26 unopposed by Defendants, each Class Representative is awarded 27 $5,000.00. 28 /// 6 1 7. Based on the materials submitted by Class Counsel in 2 support of the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, 3 which is unopposed by Defendants, Class Counsel is awarded 4 $625,000.00 as compensation and reimbursement for expenses. 5 6 8. The Settlement monies shall be distributed as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 7 9. This Order and the Final Judgment permanently bars all 8 Claims released by the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, including, 9 without limitation, all Subclass One Released Claims for those 10 persons who are Subclass One Members and all Subclass Two Released 11 Claims for all Class Members except for the two individuals who 12 opted out of the Settlement. 13 10. This Order and the Final Judgment incorporates herein the 14 releases in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, including, without 15 limitation, in Section 18 of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 16 11. The Court retains jurisdiction over the Settlement of 17 this case and may enter additional orders to effectuate the fair 18 and orderly administration of the Settlement as may from time to 19 time be appropriate. 20 without limitation, enforcement of the releases in Section 18 of 21 the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and/or other provisions of the 22 Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// The retention of jurisdiction includes, 7 1 12. The Court dismisses the action on the merits and with 2 prejudice and the Subclass One Released Claims and Subclass Two 3 Released Claims as defined in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 4 The two persons who opted out of the Joint Stipulation of 5 Settlement have not released any claims pursuant to this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 DATED: February 3, 2010 __________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
