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.

Reyes v. Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 12, 2017

JUAN M. REYES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY UNION AND INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RE: ECF NOS. 126, 128

          JON S. TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. ECF Nos. 126, 128. The Court will grant the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is Plaintiffs' second motion for preliminary approval. Plaintiffs filed their original motion on December 22, 2016. ECF No. 118. The Court denied that motion on January 11, 2017. ECF No. 122. The Court's January 11 Order contains a description of the parties and claims, as well as the details of the proposed settlement and the Court will not repeat them here. Id. Most importantly, the Order noted one defect in the settlement agreement: a reversion clause. Id. at 10. The Order also listed several necessary changes to the proposed notice procedure. Id. at 11-12. On February 24, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion containing a summary of changes to the terms of the settlement. ECF No. 126. The Court construed that motion as a renewed motion for preliminary approval.

         II. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

         The Court is satisfied that the parties have addressed the deficiencies the Court identified in the original settlement agreement. The parties removed the reversion clause, ECF No. 126 at 2, and made changes to their notice procedure consistent with the Court's Order, id. at 2-4. For the reasons stated in the Court's January 11 Order, the settlement is otherwise fair and reasonable.

         CONCLUSION

         1. The Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted.

         2. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held before this Court on September 28, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 9 - 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine: (a) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate as to the Class and should be approved by the Court; (b) whether an Order and Judgment as provided for in the Stipulation should be entered herein, (c) the amount of fees and expenses, if any, that should be awarded to Class Counsel and the amount, if any, of compensation for Class Plaintiffs; (d) whether the Claims Procedure provided in Section 6 of the Stipulation should be approved by the Court; and (e) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation.

         3. The Court approves the form and content of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing (the “Class Notice”), the Application Form, and the Publication Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Publication Notice”), and the Letter of Exemption, which are annexed as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 hereto, and finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice and publishing of the Publication Notice substantially in the manner and form set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Order meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process, are the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled thereto.

         4. Class Counsel are hereby authorized to retain the firm of Strategic Claims Services (“Settlement Administrator”) to supervise and administer the notice procedure, file tax reports, and process claims as more fully set forth in Section 6 of the Stipulation below:

         (a) Within twenty-one (21) business days after the date of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall launch the settlement website available to the public with the Stipulation, the Class Notice (and, as soon as practicable, a translation of the Class Notice in Spanish), the Application Form, and any other publicly filed documents Class Counsel and Defendants shall deem appropriate and shall provide for and staff the toll free number for Class Members to call with questions about the settlement;

         (b) Within twenty-one (21) business days after the date of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall cause a copy of the Notice substantially in the form annexed as Exhibit A-1 hereto, to be mailed by first class mail to all Class Members identified by the Pension Fund and shall make reasonable attempts to find new addresses for Class Members whose Notice packages are returned as undeliverable;

         (c) Within thirty (30) business days after the date of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall cause the Publication Notice annexed as Exhibit ...


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.