Tollini v. CGI Federal Inc.

Background

Fred Tollini filed the revised, unopposed motion after the court declined to grant his original preliminary-approval motion at a January 3, 2020 hearing and allowed the parties to revise the motion and supplement their submissions. The revised motion sought preliminary approval of a settlement involving a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 and following provisions.

The settlement class consists of all current and former non-exempt individuals employed by CGI Federal Inc. within California at any time from April 30, 2014, through May 27, 2019. The class excludes people who previously settled or released the claims covered by the settlement, as well as people who were previously paid or received awards through civil or administrative actions for those claims. The court identified the central issues as whether class and collective members received all required wages and meal breaks. It described the relevant policies and practices as including nonpayment for nonproductive time and uniform meal-break policies.

Court’s Rulings

The court conditionally certified the settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and conditionally certified the settlement group as an FLSA collective. These certifications apply only for purposes of approving the settlement and have no other effect on the litigation. The court found, for settlement purposes, that the Rule 23 requirements were met, including that the members were sufficiently numerous, shared common legal or factual questions, had claims typical of Tollini’s claims, and would be adequately represented. It also found that common issues predominated and that a class action was a superior method for resolving the controversy in the settlement context.

The court preliminarily found the settlement fair, reasonable, and the product of arm’s-length negotiations after class counsel investigated the claims and assessed their strengths and weaknesses. The court also found that the use of an experienced mediator supported the conclusion that the settlement was not collusive. It preliminarily approved the settlement; conditionally appointed Tollini as class representative; conditionally appointed David Yeremian and Roman Shkodnik of David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. as class counsel; appointed ILYM Group, Inc. as settlement administrator; and preliminarily approved the settlement-administration expenses.

Notice and Settlement Process

The court approved the proposed class notice and found that the notice procedure was the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The notice was required to explain the case, the settlement class, class counsel, the essential settlement terms, the allocation plan, requested attorney fees and costs, Tollini’s requested service award, and the procedures for participating, receiving payment, objecting, or opting out.

Members who did not timely request exclusion by August 7, 2020, would be bound by the settlement and its released claims. The notice also had to explain that cashing an individual settlement-payment check would consent to the release of factually related FLSA claims and would constitute opting into the FLSA collective. The notice had to state the workweeks attributed to each member, explain how workweeks would be used to calculate individual payments, and describe the procedure for disputing that number.

The court found that notice served on the United States and applicable state attorneys general satisfied the Class Action Fairness Act. It stayed proceedings and litigation other than settlement administration until the final approval hearing and prohibited Tollini and settlement-class members from prosecuting claims that would be released, unless a member opted out.

Final Approval

The court scheduled a final approval hearing for September 4, 2020. At that hearing, it expected to decide whether to finally approve the settlement, determine attorney fees and costs, decide Tollini’s class-representative enhancement award, and determine settlement-administration costs. The order stated that the preliminary certification and approval would be vacated if the settlement were terminated or disapproved, and that the court’s preliminary findings would not have claim-preclusion or issue-preclusion effect if the settlement did not become effective. This order therefore granted preliminary approval only; it did not finally approve the settlement or resolve liability on the underlying wage claims.