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.

Noroma v. Home Point Financial Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 21, 2019

BRANDON NORONA, and LINDA CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
HOME POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MATTHEW RIGHETTI, State Bar No. 121012, JOHN GLUGOSKI, State Bar No. 191551, MICHAEL RIGHETTI, State Bar No. 258541, REUBEN D. NATHAN, State Bar No 208436, REUBEN D. NATHAN, State Bar No 208436 Attorneys For Plaintiffs BRANDON NORONA and LINDA CORBIN

          FINAL JUDGMENT

          The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Court Judge

         On April 12, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class action/collective/representative settlement reached with Defendant Home Point Financial Corporation (“Home Point”) (ECF No. 52). On April 22, 2019, the Court issued an Order on Stipulation Re Order on Motion for Settlement Administration Schedule for Class Collective Settlement (ECF No. 56). On August 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of this settlement (ECF No. 59). On November 6, 2019, the Court issued an order granting final approval (ECF No. 64).

         Having finally approved the parties' Settlement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

         1. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated by reference in this Order, and all terms or phrases used in this Order shall have the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement.

         2. The Settlement Agreement reached by the parties constitutes a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute in this matter.

         3. The Notice of Class Action Settlement and the Notice of Collective Settlement fairly and adequately advised Settlement Class Members and Settlement Collective Members, respectively, of their right to receive their share of the Settlement, the scope and effect of the Settlement's Released Claims, the rights and obligations of Settlement Class Members and Settlement Collective Members relating to the relief provided through the Settlement, the Court's preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Class Members' right to exclude themselves from and/or object to the Settlement, the Settlement Class Members and Settlement Collective Members' right to participate in the Settlement, the date of the Final Approval Hearing, and the right to file documentation in support of or in opposition to the Settlement and to appear in connection with the Final Approval Hearing. Settlement Class Members and Settlement Collective Members had adequate time to consider this information and to use the procedures identified in the Notice of Class Action Settlement and the Notice of Collective Settlement. The Court finds and determines that these notice procedures afforded adequate protections to Settlement Class Members and Settlement Collective Members, and that the Notice of Class Action Settlement and the Notice of Collective Settlement was the best notice practicable, which satisfied the requirements of law and due process.

         4. The Court hereby finds that the Parties' notice of the proposed Settlement submitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state officials fully and adequately complied with the notice requirements set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

         5. The Court hereby finds that the Parties' notice of the proposed Settlement submitted to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency fully and adequately complied with the notice requirements of the Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code § 2699(l).

         6. The Court, having found that each of the elements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, for settlement purposes only, certifies the following Settlement Class: All persons currently or previously employed by Defendant in California, including under its prior name, Maverick Funding Corp., as originators, mortgage professionals, loan officers, loan processors and other non-exempt employees in positions that were eligible for commissions and/or non-discretionary bonuses, the amounts of which are measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency, from December 19, 2013 through and including September 30, 2018, who have not previously released their claims. The Settlement Class does not include any person who was employed solely by Stonegate Capital Corporation and/or Cross-Line Capital, Inc. in California. Individuals employed as a non-exempt inside loan agent, mortgage advisor, or mortgage loan officer at Stonegate Capital Corporation and/or Cross-Line Capital, Inc. and subsequently employed by Defendant while residing in California as non-exempt employee, in positions that were eligible for commissions and/or non-discretionary bonuses, the amounts of which are measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency are included in the Settlement Class but only for the period of time employed by Defendant starting June 1, 2017 through and including September 30, 2018.

         7. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Collective and finds for this limited purpose the individuals in the Settlement Collective are similarly situated as required by 28 U.S.C. § 216(b): All persons currently or previously employed by Defendant in the United States while residing outside California, including under Defendant's previous name, Maverick Funding Corp., as non-exempt loan originators, mortgage professionals, loan officers, loan processors and other non-exempt employees in positions that were eligible for commissions and/or non-discretionary bonuses, the amounts of which are measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency, from December 19, 2014, through and including September 30, 2018, who have not previously released their claims.

         8. For purposes of this Judgment and this Settlement only, the Court hereby certifies (a) the Settlement Class Members' Released Claims asserted on behalf of Settlement Class Members, as defined in the Settlement Agreement; and (b) the Settlement Collective Members' Released Claims asserted on behalf of Settlement Collective Members, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

         9. The Court hereby approves the settlement of the California Private Attorney General Act claims under the terms of the Agreement.

         10. All Settlement Class Members who did not submit timely requests for exclusion (“Participating Settlement Class Members”) and all Settlement Collective Members who submitted timely requests to opt-in, or late opt-in requests submitted prior to the date judgment is entered that were accepted by mutual agreement of the parties (“Participating Settlement Collective Members”) shall be subject to all of the ...


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.