Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/caed;;1:16-cv-01891_de33> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- caed;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 RegisterActionDate "2018-05-16" @default.
- caed;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/16/2018. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefing and/or declarations addressing the questions raised by the court at the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement within 30 days of this order. In particular, the parties should address the following: (1) the authority of this court to award attorneys' fees to an attorney who has not appeared on behalf of the class in this case, such as the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.; (2) the factual and legal basis for and estimated total value of all claims brought on behalf of Subclass 3; (3) authority demonstrating that PAGA penalties should not be considered in the total estimated value of the class claims, see Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 942 (N.D. Cal. 2016) and O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1133-34 (N.D. Cal. 2016); (4) an explanation of how amending the complaint to include FLSA claims would resolve the issue of waiver of FLSA claims, without separate compensation being negotiated as part of the parties' settlement for the value of those claims, see Thompson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 14-cv-2778-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 697895, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017); (5) the estimated value of any FLSA claims class counsel would bring and an explanation as to how the settlement of those claims for the amount designated as relating to those claims represents "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" over "the existence and extent of Defendant's FLSA liability," see Selk v. Pioneers Meml Healthcare Dist., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1172 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted); (6) the authority for the proposition that cashing a check satisfies the written consent requirement of 29 U.S.C. ยง 216(b); (7) the estimated value of each of the claims brought on behalf of each subclass, and an explanation for why the division of the settlement between the subclasses in the manner proposed does not improperly grant preferential treatment to segments of the class; and (8) how Subclasses 2 and 3 can be certified as part of this action alongside Subclass 1, and how plaintiff may serve as a representative of Subclasses 2 and 3. Some of the information to be provided in supplemental briefing--such as the estimated value of the claims for Subclass 3 and how the PAGA penalties should factor into the court's analysis here--may impact a review of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. Therefore, counsel are permitted to supplement their explanation of why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the new information provided, to the extent they deem necessary. Counsel may similarly provide any additional supplemental information they believe would assist the court in ruling on the pending motion. (Gaumnitz, R) (Entered: 05/16/2018)" @default.
- caed;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 AdministrativeID "34" @default.
- caed;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 hasJudgeReference SJ001891 @default.