Jones v. CertifiedSafety, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed class and collective action settlement. The case was consolidated with several related matters. The court held a hearing on January 8, 2020, and this order memorialized its oral rulings and provided additional analysis.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a settlement that would bind members of a certified class, or a class proposed for settlement purposes, requires court approval. The court may approve such a settlement only after finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Court’s Analysis

The court assessed the proposed settlement under the relevant factors and the district’s guidance for class-action settlements. It found that the plaintiffs had conducted adequate formal and informal discovery before settling, including interviews with 240 potential class and collective members.

The settlement fund represented 13.3% of the case’s maximum value as estimated by the plaintiffs. The court found that reduction reasonable because of the significant risk that the class or collective might not be certified. CertifiedSafety could argue that individualized issues made certification inappropriate, including differences in the off-the-clock time claimed and the locations operated by each oil refinery. In addition, a substantial portion of the claimed damages, including liquidated damages and penalties, depended on proving willfulness, which the court described as difficult to establish.

Ruling

The court conditionally granted preliminary approval. The conditional approval required two agreed changes to the settlement and one correction concerning class notice.

First, consistent with the parties’ agreement and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Roes v. SFBSC Management, LLC, the parties had to provide additional notice to class and collective members by text message. The court noted that CertifiedSafety did not know whether all available phone numbers were for cell phones or landlines, but stated that the settlement administrator could still attempt to send the texts and report whether delivery succeeded.

Second, instead of sending unclaimed checks directly to state unclaimed-property divisions or similar agencies, the settlement would first provide a second distribution to the class or collective. Any remaining funds could then go to a charitable beneficiary, provided the beneficiary complied with Ninth Circuit guidance.

Finally, the court required a correction to all three forms of class notice. The first paragraph had to include an estimate of what a participating member would be paid. The parties had placed that information in a later question rather than in the first paragraph, so they had to move it to the bold, all-capitalized text at the beginning of the notice.

The parties were ordered to file amended settlement documents and notices within one week. The court stated that it would then issue an order addressing final approval of the pending motion.