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.

Mata v. Manpower Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 24, 2017

JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MANPOWER INC. / CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT RE: DKT. NO. 195

          LUCY H. KOH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter came before the Court on May 11, 2017 for a hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. At the hearing, the parties requested that the Court delay its ruling on the motion until July 24, 2017 in order to allow time to fulfill the notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The parties served supplemental CAFA notice on April 25, 2017, and 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) requires that “[a]n order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice required . . . .” ECF No. 199.

         Due and adequate notice having been given to Class Members as required by the Court's January 24, 2017 Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings herein, and determining that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and otherwise being fully informed and good cause appearing therefore it is hereby

         ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

         1. For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the transcript of the proceedings of the Preliminary Approval hearing, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, this Court finds that the settlement class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

         2. This Order hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the Amended Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”), including amendments ordered by this Court, together with the definitions and terms used and contained therein.

         3. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over all parties to the action, including all members of the Settlement Class.

         4. The Class Notice fully and accurately informed Class Members of all material elements of the proposed settlement and of their opportunity to opt out, object, or comment thereon; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with the laws of the State of California, the United States Constitution, and due process. The Class Notice fairly and adequately described the settlement and provided Class Members adequate instructions and a variety of means to obtain additional information.

         5. Class Members were given a full opportunity to participate in the Final Approval hearing, and all Class Members and other persons wishing to be heard have been heard. Accordingly, the Court determines that all Class Members who did not timely and properly opt out are bound by this Order.

         6. The Court has considered all relevant factors for determining the fairness of the settlement and has concluded that all such factors weigh in favor of granting final approval. In particular, the Court finds that the settlement was reached following meaningful discovery and investigation conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel; that the settlement is the result of serious, informed, adversarial, and arm's length negotiations between the parties; and that the terms of the settlement are in all respects fair, adequate, and reasonable.

         7. In so finding, the Court has considered all evidence presented, including evidence regarding the strength of the Plaintiffs' case; the risk, expense, and complexity of the claims presented; the likely duration of further litigation; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of investigation and discovery completed; and the experience and views of Plaintiffs' counsel.

         8. The Court finds that Class Counsel has given sufficient notice pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of the proposed settlement to the attorney general of each state in which any class member resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1715. Each attorney general has had 90 days to consider and comment on the proposed settlement, and no attorney general has submitted a comment. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).

         9. At the May 11, 2017 hearing, the Court noted that ten objection forms did not clearly state whether the Class Member intended to object to the settlement or to opt out of the settlement. Therefore, the Court ordered Class Counsel to attempt to contact the following ten Class Members to determine whether these Class Members intended to object to the settlement or to opt out: Dyane Tori, Derrick Bailey, Kathy King, Phat Hong Le, Cynthia Pelston, Celia Haro, Ruby Martinez, Jessica Lavenant, Jimmy Juarez, and Bruce Andrews. ECF No. 203. In response to requests for clarification, Tori, Bailey, Pelston, Martinez, and Andrews indicated that they wished to opt out of the settlement. Id. ¶¶ 12-18. Therefore, these individuals are not Class Members and do not have standing to object to the settlement. See, e.g., San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 59 F.Supp.2d 1021, 1032 (N.D.Cal.1999) (“[N]onclass members have no standing to object to the settlement of a class action”). Haro indicated that she intended to submit only an objection and did not wish to opt out of the class. Id. ¶ 10. King, Le, Lavenant, and Juarez did not respond to these inquiries. Id. ¶ 10. The Court will therefore construe the comments of King, Le, Lavenant, and Juarez as objections rather than requests to opt out of the settlement.

         10. In total, the Court received 274 objection forms. After reviewing the objection forms, the Court concludes that only 6 of the 274 objection forms contain objections. The remaining 268 objection forms contained no objection to the settlement. Specifically, (1) 127 of the objection forms contained no text at all other than a signature; (2) 20 of the objection forms either confirmed that the signatory class member desired to participate in the settlement or expressed the signatory's satisfaction with settlement; (3) 5 of the objection ...


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.