The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT (Doc. 27) ORDER SETTING FORTH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ORDER REQURING PARTIES TO FILE ) SPANISH-LANGUAGE VERSION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT )
On December 22, 2011, Plaintiffs Patricia Franco and Lilia Castro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Ruiz Food Products, Inc. ("Ruiz"), and Does 1-50, (collectively, "Defendant") filed a joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. (Docs. 27-29.) A hearing was held on February 1, 2012, before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto.
This matter having come before the Court on the Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action and collective action settlement of the above-captioned case, as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release Between Plaintiffs and Defendant ("Stipulation of Settlement"), and the Court having duly considered the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS as follows:
1. Unless defined herein, all defined terms in this order shall have the respective meanings as the same terms in the Stipulation of Settlement.
2. The Court has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement for fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness. Based on this preliminary evaluation, the Court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the settlement is fair and has been negotiated at arm's length, and that its adequacy is such that the settlement falls within the range of possible final approval. The Court finds that there is probable cause to submit the material terms of the settlement to Settlement Class members for their consideration and reaction. Therefore, the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement.
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for settlement purposes only, the Court conditionally certifies the proposed Settlement Class, consisting of all persons currently or formerly employed as non-exempt production line employees at the Ruiz Foods processing facility in Dinuba, California, between December 15, 2006 and the Date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
4. For settlement purposes only, the Court hereby appoints the following as Settlement Class Counsel:
Egan Young, Attorneys At Law 526 Township Line Road, Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Rose F. Luzon Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2350 San Diego, CA 92101 Philip A. Downey The Downey Law Firm, LLC P.O. Box 1021 Unionville, PA 19375
5. On August 1, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., this Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the Stipulation of Settlement and proposed settlement, and to determine whether (a) final approval of the settlement should be granted; and
(b) Settlement Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses should be granted, and in what amount; and (c) whether the request for enhancement awards for the named Plaintiffs in this litigation should be granted, and in what amount. No later than July 5, 2012, Plaintiffs must file their papers in support of final settlement approval and in response to any objections. No later than July 20, 2012, the Settlement Administrator must provide the Court with a declaration specifying due diligence in administering the Notices to Class Members. The Class Notices provided to Class Members shall be provided in both English and Spanish.
6. Subject to the Court's consideration of additional evidence regarding the issue of notice at the Fairness Hearing, and based on the documents submitted and information provided to the Court in connection with the preliminary approval, the Court approves the proposed plan for giving notice to the Settlement Class, as described in the Stipulation of Settlement. The plan for giving notice, in form, method, and content, fully complies with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and is due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Court hereby directs the Parties and Settlement Administrator to mail the Notice to all Class Members no later than March 28, 2012.
7. All persons who meet the definition of the Settlement Class and who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class must submit their request for exclusion in writing, no later than May 14, 2012, stating the Class Member has decided not to participate in the Settlement, and desires to be excluded from the California Class. The request for exclusion must state the Class Member's full name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, and the approximate dates of employment in California by Defendant. The request must be mailed to the Settlement Administrator by First Class U.S. Mail, or the equivalent. A request for exclusion that is postmarked after the deadline will be considered invalid, and rejected by the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall forward copies of all requests for exclusion and W-9 forms to Settlement Class Counsel and counsel for Ruiz no later than May 24, 2012. Any person who submits a valid request for exclusion is, upon receipt, no longer a member of the Settlement ...