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.

Vaca v. Tin, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 3, 2013

RAYMOND VACA, individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated for the Benefit of All with Common or General CLASS Interest, Plaintiff,
v.
TIN, INC., dba TEMPLE-INLAND, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants.

JOSEPH H. AINLEY (SBN 141230), JHA LAW OFFICES, San Jose, CA DAVID A. LOWE (SBN: 178811), JOHN T. MULLAN (SBN: 221149), RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Plaintiff RAYMOND VACA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement came on for regularly scheduled hearing in this Court on June 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Paul Singh Grewal in Courtroom 5 of this Court.

After consideration of this Motion, the pleadings and argument of counsel, supporting declarations and documents, the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of Class Action and Individual Claims, and other papers and pleadings on file, the Court finds and determines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval should be GRANTED.

THE COURT FINDS:

1. To the extent defined in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of Class Action and Individual Claims (the "Agreement"), attached as Exhibit A herewith and incorporated by reference herein, the terms in this Order shall have the meanings set forth therein.

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Defendants and the Class.

3. The Court has determined that the Class Notice accurately informs all persons in the Class of all material elements of the proposed Settlement - including the plan of distribution of the Settlement Payment, the application for an incentive award to the Named Plaintiff and the application for a fee and expense award to Class Counsel, - constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constitutes valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members, and complies fully with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable laws. The Court hereby approves the form and content of the Class Notice, which is attached to the Agreement as Exhibit 1.

4. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. The Settlement Class, for purposes of the proposed settlement only and with no other effect on this litigation or any other proceeding, including if the Agreement ultimately is not approved or final judgment is not entered, is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and related case law and is defined as follows:

All persons who, according to IP's payroll records, worked as Corrugator or Converter Facilitators, Supervisors, Lead Men, or Working Foremen in a plant operated by TIN, Inc. dba Temple-Inland, Inc. in the state of California at any time between January 26, 2008 and the date of Preliminary Approval.

6. For purposes of the proposed settlement only, the Settlement Class, consisting of approximately 110 Class Members, is sufficiently numerous that joinder is not practicable.

7. For purposes of the proposed settlement only, the Class Members' claims all stem from the same source - their employment by Defendants as Corrugator or Converter Facilitators, Supervisors, Lead Men, or Working Foremen (collectively "Class Positions"), their classification as exempt employees, and their non-receipt of overtime wages for their overtime hours worked - and there are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement Class. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement Class include:

bull; Whether Defendants' policy and practice of classifying the Settlement Class Members as exempt from overtime entitlement and failing to pay overtime to the Settlement Class members violates applicable law, ...

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.