Filed: Oct. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Having considered the Motion and its supporting papers and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the fully executed Joint Stipulation of Class
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Having considered the Motion and its supporting papers and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the fully executed Joint Stipulation of Class A..
More
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Having considered the Motion and its supporting papers and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the fully executed Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement ("Joint Stipulation") attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ronald H. Bae in support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
2. The Court refers to the defined terms as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and finds that the proposed settlement appears to be within the range of reasonableness necessary for preliminary approval by the Court, but final determination of whether the proposed settlement terms are fair, adequate and reasonable will be made at the final approval hearing.
3. With respect to the Class and for purposes of approving this settlement only, this Court preliminarily finds that: (a) the members of the Class are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class and there is a well-defined community of interest among the Class Members with respect to the subject matter of the litigation; (c) the claims of the Class Representatives and the defenses thereto are typical of the claims of the Class Members and the defenses thereto; (d) the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Class Members; (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) counsel of record for the Class Representatives is qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiffs in their individual and representative capacity and for the Class.
4. The Court therefore conditionally certifies a Settlement Class defined as follows:
All current and former non-exempt employees who were employed in California by PVH Corp. or PVH Retail Stores LLC during January 29, 2009 through the date of preliminary approval of this settlement.
5. The Court preliminarily approves Plaintiffs Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs to serve as the Class Representatives.
6. The Court preliminarily approves Aequitas Legal Group, A Professional Law Corporation to serve as Class Counsel.
7. The Court approves the format and content of the Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action, Claim Form and Reminder Card (collectively, the "Notice Packet") attached as Exhibits A, B and C to the Joint Stipulation, respectively. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice Packet in the manner set forth in the Joint Stipulation complies with the requirements of due process of law, and appears to be the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
8. The Court appoints Rust Consulting to serve as the Claims Administrator. The Court directs Rust Consulting to disseminate the Notice Packet in the manner as set forth in the Joint Stipulation.
9. The Court orders the following implementation schedule for further proceedings:
a. Deadline for Defendants to Submit Seven (7) business days after Order
Class List and Data to Claims Granting Preliminary Approval
Administrator
b. Deadline for Claims Administrator Ten (10) calendar days after Defendants
to Mail the Notice Packet to Class provide the Claims Administrator with
Members the Class List and Data
c. Deadline for Claims Administrator Not more than thirty (30) calendar days
to Mail Reminder Post-Cards to (nor fewer than twenty-five (25) days)
Class Members after mailing of Notice Packets to Class
Members
d. Deadline for Class Members to Forty-five (45) calendar days after
Submit Claim Forms, Exclusion mailing of Notice Packets to Class
Requests and to file any Objections Members
to Settlement
e. Deadline for Class Counsel to file
(1) Motion for Final Approval of January 27, 2017
Class Action Settlement, and (2)
Motion for Award of Class
Representative Enhancement
Awards, Claims Administrator's
Expenses and Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
f. Hearing on:
• Motion for Final Approval February 23, 2017 (Thursday)
of Class Action Settlement; at 2:00 p.m.
• Motion for Award of Class
Representative Enhancement
Awards, Claims
Administrator's Expenses
and Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
IT IS SO ORDERED.
