Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- OAKLAND DIVISION


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 23(b)(3) are satisfied. 19

Long, and Cheri Davidson as additional Settlement Class Representatives. 22

23

Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"). 25

26

Agreement") and in Plaintiffs' Motion, as being the result of arms'-length negotiations between 28

the Parties, not a product of collusion, bearing a probable, reasonable relationship to the claims alleged 2 by Plaintiffs, and within the range of possible judicial approval. 3

9. The Court approves the form and content of the proposed revised Settlement Notices,

4 substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion. The Court finds that 5 the proposed revised Settlement Notices and manner of notice, as set out in Plaintiffs' Motion and 6

Supplemental Motion, constitute the best practicable notice under the circumstances, and satisfies all 7 applicable requirements of law, including but not limited to Rule 23 and the due process rights of 8

10. The Court appoints Simpluris, Inc. ("Settlement Administrator") to administer the

10 proposed class settlement in this class and directs Simpluris to disseminate the Settlement Notices, and 11 the Parties to act, according to the following schedule: 12

Administrator, the Settlement Class List and a approval Order summary breakdown of the settlement payments 14 to be made to each Settlement Class Member, including each individual's (1) name, (2) last-15 known address, (3) social security number or employee identification number, (4) estimated 16 gross settlement payment amount, (5) the number 17 of shifts worked by each Settlement Class Member in each calendar year during the relevant 18 statutory period 19

Last day for Class Counsel to submit motion for August 9, 2012 21 attorney's fees Last day for individuals to submit dispute forms August 8, 2012 22 requesting review of their estimated gross 23 settlement payment amount, together with any supporting written documentation 24

Last day for Settlement Administrator to make August 18, 2012 or 10 calendar days after receipt 25 final determinations regarding disputes, with the of each dispute form input and assistance of Class Counsel and Defense 26

Counsel

Last day for individuals to submit an objection to August 23, 2012 the settlement or to Class Counsel's request for 28 attorneys' fees

Settlement Class Members. 9

Last day for Defendants to provide, to Settlement 14 calendar days after issuance of the preliminary 13

Last day for Settlement Administrator to mail 14 calendar days after receipt of Settlement Class Settlement Notice to Settlement Class Members List from Defendants 20

Last day for individuals to exclude themselves August 23, 2012 2 from the Settlement Class Last day for Plaintiffs to file motion for final August 28, 2012 3 approval of settlement 4

Last day for Defendants to file proof of service of August 28, 2012 Class Action Fairness Act notification 5

United States District Court for the Northern

District of California, located at 1301 Clay Street, 7

Oakland, California 8

Fairness Hearing, to be held in Courtroom 2 of the September 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. 6

Last day for Defendants to transfer necessary 10 calendar days after the Effective Date*fn1 of the funds to Settlement Administrator, who will send Master Settlement Agreement 9 individual checks to Settlement Class Members 10

Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation 12

Class Members 14 15

provide information regarding the settlement, including the Master Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Notices, Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and important dates and deadlines in this case.

12. Class Counsel must submit their motion for attorney's fees and all supporting documents at least 14 days before the last day for Settlement Class members to object to the settlement.

13. If a member of the Settlement Class disagrees with his or her estimated gross settlement

payment amount, that individual may submit a dispute form to the Settlement Administrator, together

with any supporting written documentation, no later than 30 days after the postmark date of the

Settlement Notice. The Settlement Administrator shall, with the input and assistance of Class Counsel

Last day for Defendants to wire the attorneys' 10 calendar days after the Effective Date of the fees, in the amount approved by the Court, to Master Settlement Agreement 11

Last day for Settlement Administrator to issue and 10 calendar days after receipt of funds from mail individual settlement checks to Settlement Defendants 13

11. Class Counsel shall maintain a website at www.shellmealsettlement.com, which shall

26 which all of the following events shall have occurred: (a) the court has entered the Final Approval Order;

(b) the Parties have not given notice of intent to withdraw from this Agreement as permitted under 27

Sections IV and VII of this Agreement and the time for giving such notice has run; and (c) the Final Approval Order has become final and non-appealable, either through the passage of time or the exhaustion 28 of all appeals or other methods of review by appellate courts. If there is no procedural basis for an appeal (for example, no objections were filed), the calculation of the Effective Date shall not include the time for the appeals process."

Case No. C 09-05876 CW (DMR)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

and Defense Counsel, make the final determination regarding the dispute within 10 days of receipt of the 2 written request for review, or no later than 40 days after the postmark date of the Settlement Notice. 3

14. Settlement Class members have a right to opt out of the Settlement Class and be excluded

4 from receiving any benefits under the settlement by completing and mailing a written opt-out request to 5 the Settlement Administrator no later than 45 days after the postmark date of the Settlement Notice. Late-6 submitted opt-out requests will not be accepted by the Settlement Administrator and shall not be 7 effective. The Settlement Administrator will certify jointly to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel which 8 requests for exclusion were valid and timely submitted. 9

Hearing") be held on September 6, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court shall consider: 11

(b) whether a judgment granting approval of the settlement and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice 13 should be entered; and (c) whether Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses should 14 be approved. 15

16. Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to final approval of the settlement,

16 including Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees, must file a written objection, along with any 17 supporting documents, with the Court, with copies to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, no later than 18

45 days after the postmark date of the Settlement Notice. The written objection must set forth, in clear 19 and concise terms, the legal and factual arguments supporting the objection. Members of the Settlement 20

Class who fail to make objections in the manner specified shall be deemed to have waived any and all 21 objections and shall be foreclosed from making any objection, whether by appeal or otherwise, to the 22 settlement. 23

17. The filing of an objection allows Class Counsel or Defense Counsel, upon reasonable

24 notice, to take the deposition of the objecting Settlement Class Member, and to seek any documentary 25 evidence or other tangible things that are relevant to the objection. Failure of the Settlement Class 26

Member to make himself or herself available for a deposition or comply with expedited discovery 27 requests may result in the Court striking the Settlement Class Member's objection and otherwise denying 28 him or her the opportunity to make an objection or be further heard.

15. The Court orders that a fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement ("Fairness

10

(a) whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Settlement Class; 12

2 person or through counsel) must file with the Court and serve upon Class Counsel and Defense Counsel a 3 written notice of intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing ("Notice of Intention to Appear"). The 4

Notice of Intention to Appear sent to each party must include copies of any papers, exhibits, or other 5 evidence that the objecting Settlement Class Member will present to the Court in connection with the 6

19. The cost of providing notice and administration of the settlement, as provided for by this

Order and the Master Settlement Agreement, shall be paid by the Defendants directly to the Settlement 9

20. All payments made under the Master Settlement Agreement shall be subject to applicable

11 payroll deductions required by state and federal law. 12

13 proposed settlement, the final order will not issue earlier than ninety days after Defendants have served 14 the required CAFA notice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) (stating that an "order giving final approval of a 15 proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the 16 appropriate Federal official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice required under 17 subsection (b)"). By August 28, 2012, Defendants shall submit proof of service of notice required under 18 § 1715(b) and shall indicate when the notice was served. 19 20 21

18. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be heard at the Fairness Hearing (whether in Fairness Hearing. 7

Administrator and separately from any other amounts due under this settlement. 10

21. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), in the event that the Court grants final approval of the

Dated:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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