Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

David Gardner, Steve Mattern, Brian v. Equilon Enterprises LLC Dba Shell Oil Products Us

June 14, 2012

DAVID GARDNER, STEVE MATTERN, BRIAN
CERRI, WILLIAM SULLIVAN, MARK
LANDRE, LAWRENCE LONG, AND CHERI ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN DAVIDSON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, CRI U.S. LP, AND SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY LP DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

ORDER CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT NOTICE, PROCEDURE, AND ADMINISTRATOR

Administrator (the "Motion") and the Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of 4 Procedure and Administrator ("Supplemental Motion"), the Court finds that (1) the proposed Class meets 6 the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and should be certified for settlement purposes, 7 and the persons set forth below should be appointed Class Representatives and Class Counsel; (2) the 8 proposed settlement is the result of arms'-length negotiations between the Parties, is not a product of 9 collusion, bears a probable, reasonable relationship to the claims alleged by Plaintiffs, is within the range 10 of possible judicial approval, and is hereby preliminarily approved; (3) the proposed revised Settlement 11 Notices substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Motion and the proposed 12 manner of notice set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion and Supplemental Motion will provide the best notice 13 practicable to the Settlement Class under the circumstances and satisfy the requirements of due process; 14 and (4) a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), to consider whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, 15 and adequate, and whether it should be approved pursuant to Rule 23, shall be scheduled for September 16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Parties to this proceeding pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 20 21 Pipeline"), and CRI U.S. LP ("Criterion") (collectively, "Defendants") in Contra Costa County, the 23 location of the Martinez Refinery and the Criterion Catalyst Plants in Contra Costa County, the 24 performance of various contracts pertaining to working conditions at the Martinez Refinery, the Criterion 25 Catalyst Plants, and the Carson Terminal Facility by Defendants in Contra Costa County, as well as the 26 location of the commission of the acts alleged herein in Contra Costa County. 27

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement, and Approval of Settlement Notice, Procedure, and 3 Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement, and Approval of Settlement Notice, 5 6, 2012. 17

2. Venue is proper in this district based on the location of work performed by Defendants Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US ("SOPUS"), Shell Pipeline Company LP ("Shell 22

3. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23. Therefore, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class: 3

9 waiting-time penalty claims: 10

19 described above satisfy the following factors of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: 20 21 penalty, and UCL claims of 12-hour shift employees at the Martinez Refinery satisfy the requirements of 22 Court. Therefore, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied. 24

All current and former shift employees of Defendants Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US, Shell Pipeline Company LP, or CRI U.S. LP who worked at least one continuous 8- or 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and September 30, 2011 at the Martinez Refinery, or who worked at least one continuous 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and September 30, 2011 at the Criterion Catalyst Plants in Martinez or Pittsburg, California, or who worked at least one continuous 8- or 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and May 10, 2007 at the Los Angeles Refinery, or who worked at least one continuous, rotating 12-hour shift between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2011, at the Carson Terminal Facility.

4. The Court also certifies the following Settlement Subclass with respect to Plaintiffs'

All former shift employees of Defendants Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US, Shell Pipeline Company LP, or CRI U.S. LP who worked at least one continuous 8- or 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and September 30, 2011 at the Martinez Refinery, or who worked at least one continuous 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and September 30, 2011 at the Criterion Catalyst Plants in Martinez or Pittsburg, California, or who worked at least one continuous 8- or 12-hour shift between April 25, 2004 and May 10, 2007 at the Los Angeles Refinery, or who worked at least one continuous 12-hour shift between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2011, at the Carson Terminal Facility, and who, at any time between April 25, 2005 and September 30, 2011, were terminated, resigned, or otherwise separated from employment with Defendants and were not timely paid all wages due and owing, pursuant to California Labor Code sections 203, 226.7, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. This does not include any employees at the Los Angeles Refinery who continued employment at the refinery after its acquisition by Tesoro on May 11, 2007.

5. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Settlement Class and Subclass

a. Numerosity: The Court previously determined that the meal period, waiting-time Rule 23(a)(1). The Settlement Class and Subclass expand the class and subclass already certified by the 23

b. Commonality: There are issues of law and fact common to members of the Settlement Class, including but not limited to: (i) whether Defendants' policies and practices deprived 26 shift employees of off-duty 30-minute meal periods during their continuous work shifts, (ii) whether 27 Defendants maintain or have maintained common policies that fail to properly compensate members of 28 the Settlement Class in accordance with applicable law; and (iii) whether Defendants timely paid all wages due to members of the Settlement Subclass at the time of separation from employment. Therefore, 2 the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied. 3

c. Typicality: Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint adds three new class 4 representatives -- Mark Landre, Lawrence Long, and Cheri Davidson, each of whom were 12-hour shift 5 workers at the Los Angeles Refinery when it was owned by SOPUS -- to the four previously certified 6 representatives of the class in this case. As stated below, the Court appoints these individuals as 7 additional class representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that the claims of these seven 8 class representatives ("Settlement Class Representatives") are typical of those of the Settlement Class. 9

d. Adequacy: The Court previously determined that the four original class 11 representatives and their counsel are adequate representatives of the class in this case. The addition of 12 three new class representatives will only serve to ensure that Settlement Class members in Southern 13 23(a)(4) is satisfied. 15

16 questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members in this case and that a 17 classwide settlement is superior to other available methods for a fair resolution of the controversy. 18

6. The Court has already appointed David Gardner, Steve Mattern, Brian Cerri, and William Sullivan as representatives of the class in this case. The Court also appoints Mark Landre, Lawrence 21

7. The Court appoints Jay Smith and Linda S. Fang of Gilbert & Sackman, A Law

Corporation and Richard Rouco of Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco as joint counsel for the 24

8. The Court preliminarily approves the proposed class settlement, as set out in the Parties'

Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement and Release ("Master Settlement 27

Therefore, the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied. 10

California are equally represented in the settlement. Therefore, the adequacy requirement of Rule 14

e. Predominance and Superiority: The Court finds that common legal and factual

Therefore, the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.