Hernandez et al v. Sephora USA, Inc., No. 3:2016cv05392 - Document 104 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/31/2020. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hernandez et al v. Sephora USA, Inc. Doc. 104 Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LACEY HERNANDEZ; and BRENDA MORALES, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 vs. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 15 16 17 18 19 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 16-CV-05392-WHO [COLLECTIVE LAWSUIT PURSUANT TO 29 USC §216(b)] [PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL DATE: August 26, 2020 TIME: 2:00 p.m. COURTROOM: 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 4 1 The motion of Plaintiffs Lacey Hernandez and Brenda Morales for Final 2 Approval of Collective Lawsuit Settlement came on regularly for hearing on August 3 26, 2020. Named Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel of 4 record, Matthew F. Archbold, of Deason & Archbold; Defendant appeared through 5 their counsel of record, Andrew R. Livingston, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 6 LLP. 7 Having received and considered the Status of Settlement Administration and 8 Notice Procedures, and Request for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement, 9 Final Award of Collective Action Counsel's Attorney Fees and Costs, and Named 10 Plaintiff Service Payments filed herewith, and all exhibits and declarations attached 11 thereto, the within Judgment is entered as follows: 12 13 14 1. All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Stipulation. 2. The Court finds that the Settlement Stipulation has been reached as a 15 result of intensive, serious and non-collusive arms-length negotiations. The Court 16 further finds that the Parties have conducted extensive investigation and research 17 and counsel for the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. 18 The Court also finds that settlement at this time will avoid additional substantial 19 costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be presented by the further 20 prosecution of the Lawsuit. 21 3. The Court finds that distribution of the Notice directed to the Opt-In 22 Plaintiffs as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation and the other matters set forth 23 therein have been completed in conformity with the Order of Preliminary Approval, 24 including individual Notice of Settlement by first class mail to all Opt-In Plaintiffs 25 who could be identified through reasonable effort. The Court finds the Notice of 26 Settlement sent to all Opt-In Plaintiffs provided due and adequate notice of the 27 proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement 28 set forth in the Settlement Stipulation, to all persons entitled to such Notice of 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 4 1 Settlement, and the Notice of Settlement fully satisfied the requirements of due 2 process. No Opt-In Plaintiff objected to the settlement. 3 4. This Court hereby approves the settlement set forth in the Settlement 4 Stipulation and finds that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and directs 5 the Parties to effectuate the settlement according to its terms. The Court has 6 reviewed the monetary recovery that is being granted as part of the settlement and 7 recognizes the significant value to the Opt-In Plaintiffs of that recovery. 8 9 5. The Court hereby orders Defendants to distribute the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Stipulation. 10 6. The Court hereby finds the Collective Action Counsel Fees and Costs 11 requested to be reasonable and awards the Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of One 12 Hundred 13 ($127,375.00) and Litigation Expenses in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Four 14 Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($17,425.00) and orders that said Collective Action 15 Counsel Fees and Costs be paid pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. 16 Twenty-Seven 7. Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars The Court hereby approves service awards to Named Plaintiffs in the 17 amount of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for each Named Plaintiff. 18 The Court hereby orders the Named Plaintiff service awards be paid pursuant to the 19 Settlement Stipulation. 20 8. The Court hereby approves Settlement Administration Costs to the 21 Settlement Administrator in the amount of Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars 22 ($8,700.00). The Court hereby orders Defendant to pay the Settlement 23 Administration Costs in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement 24 Stipulation. 25 //// 26 27 28 9. The Effective Settlement Date shall be the thirtieth (30th) day following entry of this Order. 10. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 3:16-cv-05392-WHO Document 104 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 4 1 hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation and 2 enforcement of the settlement and Settlement Stipulation, and all orders and 3 judgments entered in connection therewith. 4 11. If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with 5 the terms of the Settlement Stipulation, then this Judgment and all orders entered in 6 connection herewith shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 11 DATED: August 31, 2020 ____________________________________ Hon. William H. Orrick United States District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
]]>
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.
