United States District Court, N.D. California
JOSHUA CAUDLE and KRYSTLE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
wage-and-hour class action, plaintiffs move for preliminary
approval of a class settlement agreement. For the reasons
stated below, the motion is Granted,
reserving on final approval and on any incentive award,
attorney's fees, and costs later.
background of this action has been set forth in a prior order
and needs not be discussed in detail herein (see
Dkt. No. 45). In brief, defendant Sprint/United Management
Company sells mobile phone devices and services to retail
customers. In February 2016, Sprint instituted a redesigned
incentive compensation plan called the Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment program, which remained in effect until March
2017. This program allegedly made an unlawful 10%
“across-the-board deduction” from employees'
individually earned commission based on factors outside the
individual employees' control and unrelated to the
individual employees' efforts regarding a particular sale
Joshua Caudle and Krystle White - a former store manager and
former lead retail consultant, respectively - worked in
various northern California Sprint retail store locations.
They brought the instant action in November 2017, asserting
various claims arising out of the Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment program for alleged unlawful deductions from
employees' wages under California Labor Code Sections
order dated December 18, 2018, certified three classes
relating to the deductions made under the Sprint Promoter
Score Adjustment program (Dkt. No. 45 at 11-12). The first
class was directly based on Sprint's policy at issue
(i.e., the Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment
program). The other two certified classes - the wage
statement and waiting time classes - are derivative of the
first class. Both Joshua Caudle and Krystle White were
appointed as class representatives (id. at 12).
Following class certification, the parties reached a
settlement by ultimately accepting a mediator's proposal
(Dkt. No. 63-1 ¶ 9).
now move for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. This order follows a brief from plaintiffs, a
statement of non-opposition from defendant, and oral
settlement should be approved if ‘it is fundamentally
fair, adequate and reasonable.' ” Torrisi v.
Tuscon Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir.
1993) (citation omitted). Preliminary approval is appropriate
if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product
of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no
obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to class representatives or segments of the class,
and falls within the range of possible approval.”
In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F.Supp.2d
1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Chief Judge Vaughn Walker).
Here, the proposed settlement agreement satisfies these
the proposed settlement, the key terms would be as follows:
Settlement Fund: The net settlement fund would
be $4, 000, 000 minus attorney's fees and costs,
incentive payments, administrative expenses, and payment to
the Labor & Workforce Development Agency
(“LWDA”) for civil penalties under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) (Dkt. No.
63 at 1), equaling to an estimated $2, 622, 000 (Dkt. No.
67-1 ¶¶ 3.1, 3.1(e)). The fund would be composed as
Incentive Award: Caudle and White
plan to request an incentive award of $5, 000 and $3, 000,
respectively, for a total of $8, 000. The settlement
agreement, however, is not contingent on approval of the
incentive award (id. ¶ 3.1(b)).
Attorney's Fees and Costs:
Class counsel plan to request an award of attorney's fees
of $1, 000, 000 and costs of $50, 000. Any unapproved portion
of the request for fees and costs would be added to the net
settlement fund and distributed to the class on a pro
rata basis. The settlement agreement is not ...