Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Doris Olivares, Catherine Hepsley, and Nancy Rheeston, On v. Plaintiffs

March 14, 2013


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero The Honorable Magistrate Judge


On April 20, 2011, Representative Plaintiff Doris Olivares, individually and on behalf of a 3 purported class of similarly situated individuals, filed a Class Action Complaint naming Defendant 4 Bath & Body Works, LLC, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. On 5 June 1, 2011, Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District 6 of California. On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding Catherine 7 Hepsley and Nancy Rheeston as Representative Plaintiffs. That action is known as Doris Olivares, et al. 8 v. Bath & Body Works, LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-02610-JCS. The Class Action Complaint asserts 9 claims against Defendant under: (a) §201 et seq. of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California IWC Wage 10

Order 7-2001, and §§ 510 and 1198 of the California Labor Code for an alleged failure to pay overtime; 11 (b) §§ 201- 203 of the California Labor Code for an alleged failure to pay wages in a timely manner 12 upon termination; (c) § 226 of the California Labor Code for an alleged failure to provide accurate 13 itemized wage statements; (d) §§ 17200 et seq. of the California Bus. and Prof. Code for alleged 14 unlawful and unfair business practices; (e) the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act of 2004, 15 pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.; and (f) Article XV, §1 of the California 16 Constitution. Defendant denied all of Plaintiffs' allegations and denied liability on all claims. 17

On May 8, 2012, the Parties participated in a mediation in California before the Honorable Edward Panelli (Ret.), a former justice of the Supreme Court of the State of California and an 19 experienced mediator with the national organization JAMS. At the conclusion of the mediation, the 20 Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as represented in the Stipulation of Class Action 21 Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation") that was filed previously with this Court. 22 On March 1, 2013, this Court conducted a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's previous Order Granting 24 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval 25 Order") entered herein on October 29, 2012. Due and adequate notice having been given to the 26 Settlement Class as required in said Preliminary Approval Order, with no objection having been 27 made by any member of the Settlement Class to the proposed settlement, and the Court having 28 1 Case No. 3:11-cv-02610-JCS Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement And Final Judgment considered all papers filed and proceedings had herein and otherwise being fully informed in the 2 matter, and good cause appearing therefore: 3


1. For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the transcript of 5 the proceedings of the Preliminary Approval hearing, which are adopted and incorporated herein 6 by reference, this Court finds that the applicable requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure have been satisfied with respect to the Class and the proposed Settlement. The 8 Court hereby makes final its earlier provisional certification of the Class, as set forth in the 9 Preliminary Approval Order. 10

2. This Final Approval Order hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the terms 11 and conditions of the Parties' Stipulation, together with the definitions of terms used and contained 12 therein. 13 3. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Class Action 14 and over all parties to the Class Action, including all members of the Settlement Class. 15

4. The Class Notice given to the Class Members fully and accurately informed the

Class Members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and of their opportunity to 17 object to or comment thereon; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, 18 due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with the Federal Rules of Civil 19

Procedure, the United States Constitution, due process, and other applicable law. The Class Notice 20 fairly and adequately described the Settlement and provided Class Members adequate instructions 21 and a variety of means to obtain additional information. A full opportunity has been afforded to 22 the Class Members to participate in the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, the Court 23 determines that all Class Members who did not timely and properly execute a request for exclusion 24 are bound by this Order and Judgment. 25

5. The Court has considered all relevant factors for determining the fairness of the 16 26 settlement and has concluded that all such factors weigh in favor of granting final approval. In 27 particular, the Court finds that the Settlement was reached following meaningful discovery and 28 investigation conducted by Class Counsel; that the Settlement is the result of serious, informed, 2 adversarial, and arm's-length negotiations between the Parties; and that the terms of the Settlement 3 are in all respects fair, adequate, and reasonable. In so finding, the Court has considered all of the 4 evidence presented, including evidence regarding the strength of the Plaintiffs' case; the risk, 5 expense, and complexity of the claims presented; the likely duration of further litigation; the 6 amount offered in Settlement; the extent of investigation and discovery completed; and the 7 experience and views of Class Counsel. The Court finds that there were no objections to the 8 Settlement by Class Members. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Settlement and 9 expressly finds that said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best 10 interests of the entire Settlement Class. The Court hereby directs implementation of all terms, 11 conditions, and provisions of the Stipulation except for the cy pres beneficiary which shall be Dress 12 for Success Worldwide, a registered non-profit organization, located at 32 East 31st Street, 7th 13 Floor, New York, NY 10016. 14

6. The Court hereby makes final its earlier approval of Class Counsel, as set forth in

15 the Preliminary Approval Order. Attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $429,000.00 16 and costs of $17,500.00, as compensation for all attorney time spent on this matter from its 17 inception, including all work related to this case and all costs, is hereby approved as fair and 18 reasonable. No other costs or fees relief shall be awarded, either against Defendant or any other of 19 the Released Parties, as defined in the Stipulation. 20

7. The Court hereby makes final its earlier approval of Representative Plaintiffs Doris Olivares, Catherine Hepsley, and Nancy Rheeston as Class Representatives, as set forth in the 22 Preliminary Approval Order. Based on their unique contribution to the class and risk incurred, the 23 Court finds an enhancement payment of $7,500.00 for each of the ...

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.