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.

Simril v. TVI, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 17, 2017

CLINTON SIMRIL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
TVI, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

          JAMES KAWAHITO (SBN 234851) KAWAHITO LAW GROUP APC, SAHAG MAJARIAN II, Attorneys for Plaintiff Clinton Simril and Class Members

          ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

          SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On April 14, 2017 the Court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiff Clinton Simril (“Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Motion is not opposed by Defendant TVI, Inc. (“TVI”). The Court has considered the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Class Notice”) and the Motion for Preliminary Approval and its attached forms, the submissions of counsel, and hereby finds and Orders as follows:

         1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used in this Order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) will have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

         2. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, filed with the Court, falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval.

         3. Based on a review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations conducted after Class Counsel adequately investigated the claims and became familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of those claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the Court's conclusion that the settlement is non-collusive.

         4. The Court conditionally finds that, for the purposes of approving this settlement only, the proposed Class meets the requirements for certification of a settlement class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the proposed Class is ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed Class; (c) certain claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed Class; (d) Plaintiff and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed Class; and (e) a class action is superior to the other available methods for an efficient resolution of this controversy. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only (and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon this or any other action, including no effect upon this action should the settlement not ultimately be approved), the following class: All persons who worked for Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee from December 21, 2011 to the date of Preliminary Approval

         5. For purposes of this Preliminary Approval Order, “Class Period” means the period from December 21, 2011 through the date of preliminary approval.

         6. If the settlement does not become final for any reason, the fact that the parties were willing to stipulate to class certification as part of the Settlement shall have no bearing on, and will not be admissible in connection with the issue of whether a class in this action should be certified in a non-settlement context.

         7. The Court's conditional findings are limited solely to the claims brought on behalf of the proposed Class. The Court's findings are for purposes of conditionally certifying a Class and will not have any claim or issue preclusion or estoppel effect in any other action against Defendant or in this action if the settlement is not finally approved.

         8. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Clinton Simril as representative for the claims against TVI.

         9. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Kawahito Law Group APC and the Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II as “Class Counsel.” 10. The Court approves CPT Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator to perform duties in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

         11. The Court finds that the procedures for notifying the Class about the settlement as described in the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances and therefore meet the requirements of due process, and directs the mailing of the Class Notice and the attachments thereto in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

         12. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Class Notice and associated forms. The Claims Administrator is authorized to mail those documents, after they are updated with the appropriate dates and deadlines consistent with the Settlement ...


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.