Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977)
`Ori Edelstein (SBN 268145)
`Michelle S. Lim (SBN 315691)
`SCHNEIDER WALLACE
`COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
`2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
`Emeryville, California 94608
`Telephone: (415) 421-7100
`Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
`ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
`oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
`mlim@schneiderwallace.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs, and the Putative
`Classes and Collective
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`Hon. John A. Mendez
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Date:
`September 13, 2022
`Time:
`1:30 p.m.
`Ctrm.:
`6, 14th Floor
`
`Filed: September 6, 2019
`Trial Date: None
`
`JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY,
`HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA LEWIS, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC,
`FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and GH
`SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN
`ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Joshua Wright, Loretta
`Stanley, Haley Quam, and Aiesha Lewis, Plaintiffs in this action (the “Action”), was scheduled for
`hearing regularly in Courtroom 6, 14th Floor, of the above captioned court, the Honorable John A.
`Mendez presiding. The Parties stipulated that the Court could decide the motion without a hearing
`and Defendants do not oppose the motion.
`In the operative complaint in the Action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal
`and state wage and hour laws with respect to current and former non-exempt employees who
`worked for Defendants. Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
`committed violations as to Plaintiffs and Class and Collective Members by: (1) not paying Class
`and Collective Members proper minimum and overtime wages for work performed off-the-clock
`on a daily basis; (2) failing to provide Class and Collective Members with a reasonable opportunity
`to take meal and rest periods, and failing to compensate Class and Collective Members when such
`meal and rest periods are not taken; (3) failing to reimburse necessarily-incurred expenses; and (4)
`failing to issue accurate, itemized wage statements.
`After discovery and extensive investigation by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Parties participated in
`three sessions of private mediations with respected neutral mediator David Rotman and Steve
`Serratore in an attempt to resolve the claims. As a result of the final mediation session on October
`5, 2021 and further arm’s-length negotiations facilitated by Mr. Serratore, the Parties reached a
`global settlement that resolves all of the claims in all of the Action. The Parties then executed a
`Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement”) on June 8, 2022.
`The instant motion seeking Preliminary Approval was filed on July 21, 2022 (ECF No. 85)
`for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement is within the
`range of possible approval, if Notices of the Settlement to Members of the California Class and
`FLSA Collective Members are appropriate, and whether a formal fairness hearing, also known as a
`final approval hearing, should be scheduled. Appearing at the hearing was Schneider Wallace
`Cottrell Konecky LLP on behalf of Plaintiffs, the Collective, and Putative Classes, and Constangy,
`Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP on behalf of Defendants Frontier Management LLC, Frontier
`Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”).
`Having reviewed the papers and documents presented, having heard the statements of
`counsel, and having considered the matter, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
`1.
`The Court hereby GRANTS preliminary approval of the terms and conditions
`contained in the Settlement, attached to the Declaration of Carolyn H. Cottrell in support of
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement as Exhibit 1, as to the California,
`Oregon, Washington, and Illinois Classes (“State Classes”). The Court preliminarily finds that the
`terms of the Settlement appear to be within the range of possible approval, pursuant to Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 23 and applicable law.
`2.
`The Court finds on a preliminary basis that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and
`reasonable to the members of the State Classes when balanced against the probable outcome of
`further litigation relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and appeals; (2)
`significant discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel
`for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement
`at this time will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further
`prosecution of the litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of
`intensive, serious, and non-collusive, arms-length negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly,
`the Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith.
`3.
`The Court hereby GRANTS conditional certification of the provisional State Classes,
`in accordance with the Settlement, for the purposes of this Settlement only. The State Classes are
`defined as:
`a. The California Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or
`alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
`employee in the State of California between September 6, 2015 and March 1, 2022.
`b. The Oregon Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or are
`alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
`employee in the state of Oregon between July 8, 2014 and March 1, 2022.
`c. The Washington Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`are alleged to have been employed in the Action by Defendants as a non-exempt
`employee in the state of Washington between July 8, 2017 and March 1, 2022.
`d. The Illinois Class means all persons who are employed, have been employed, or are
`alleged in the Action to have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
`employee in the state of Illinois between July 8, 2017 and March 1, 2022.
`4.
` The Court hereby GRANTS approval of the terms and conditions contained in the
`Settlement as to the Collective of Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement
`are a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute and that the terms of the Settlement are
`within the range of possible approval pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable law.
`5.
`The Court finds that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable to the Collective
`Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to class
`certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; (2) significant discovery,
`investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this
`time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; (3) settlement at this time will avoid
`substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the
`litigation; and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and
`non-collusive, arms-length negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
`Settlement was entered into in good faith.
`6.
`The Court conditionally certified the Collective in its March 17, 2020 Order (ECF
`15), and the Court now finally certifies the Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for Settlement
`purposes only. The Collective is defined as all individuals who have submitted Opt-In Consent
`Forms in the Federal Action and worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees between
`March 13, 2017 and March 1, 2022.
`7.
`The Court hereby authorizes the retention of Settlement Services, Inc. as Settlement
`Administrator for the purpose of the Settlement, with reasonable administration costs estimated to
`be $149,400.
`8.
`The Court hereby conditionally appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP
`as Counsel for the Class. The Court hereby conditionally appoints Plaintiffs Wright, Stanley, Quam,
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`and Lewis as Class Representatives for the California, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois State
`Classes, respectively.
`9.
`The Court hereby appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as Counsel for
`the Collective. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs Wright, Stanley, Quam, and Lewis as
`Collective Representatives for the Collective.
`10.
`The Court hereby APPROVES the Notices of Settlement attached to the Settlement
`as Exhibit C and Exhibit D. The Court finds that the Notice of Settlement, along with the related
`notification procedure contemplated by the Settlement, constitute the best notice practicable under
`the circumstances and are in full compliance with the applicable laws and the requirements of due
`process. The Court further finds that the Notices of Settlement appear to fully and accurately inform
`the Members of the State Classes of all material elements of the proposed Settlement, of their right
`to be excluded from the Settlement, and of their right and opportunity to object to the Settlement.
`The Court also finds that the Notice of Settlement appears to fully and accurately inform the
`Members of the Collective of all material elements of the proposed Settlement.
`11.
`The Court hereby authorizes dissemination of the Notice of Settlement to Members
`of the State Classes and the Collective. Subject to the terms of the Settlement, the Notice of
`Settlement shall be mailed via first-class mail to the most recent known address of each Member of
`the State Classes and the Collective within the timeframe specified in the Settlement, and sent via
`email to all such persons for whom Defendants have an email address. The Parties are authorized
`to make non-substantive changes to the proposed Notice of Settlement that are consistent with the
`terms of the Settlement and this Order.
`12.
`The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed procedure for members of the State
`Classes to request exclusion from the Rule 23 component of the Settlement, which is to submit a
`written statement requesting exclusion to the Settlement Administrator during the time period
`permitted under the Settlement. Any member of the State Classes who submits a written exclusion
`shall not be a member of the State Classes, shall be barred from participating in the Rule 23
`component of the Settlement, and shall receive no benefit from the Rule 23 component of the
`Settlement.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`13.
`The Court further PRELIMINARILY APPROVES Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for
`attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $3,166,663.50, plus their
`costs, not to exceed $110,000. The Parties are authorized to make changes to the proposed Notice
`of Settlement to reflect that Class Counsel will request up to one-third of the Gross Settlement
`Amount, or $3,166,663.50, to compensate them for their services in this matter.
`14.
`The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a motion for final approval of
`the Settlement, with the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, including a declaration
`setting forth the identity of any members of the State Classes who request exclusion from the
`Settlement, by December 23, 2022.
`15.
`The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a motion for approval of the
`fee and cost award and of the service award to the Class Representative, with the appropriate
`declarations and supporting evidence, by December 23, 2022, to be heard at the same time as the
`motion for final approval of the Settlement.
`16.
`The Court further ORDERS that each member of the State Classes shall be given a
`full opportunity to object to the Rule 23 component of the proposed Settlement and request for
`attorneys’ fees, and to participate at a Final Approval Hearing, which the Court sets to commence
`on March 1, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6, 14th Floor, of the United States District Court,
`Eastern District of California. Any Class Member seeking to object to the proposed Settlement may
`file such objection in writing with the Court and shall serve such objection on Plaintiffs’ counsel
`and Defendants’ counsel.
`17.
`Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby APPROVES the
`proposed Notices of Settlement and adopts the following dates and deadlines:
`
`Deadline for Defendants to pay the Gross
`Settlement Amount in the QSF
`Deadline for Defendants to provide SSI with
`the Class List
`Deadline for SSI to mail the Notice of
`Settlement to Class Members
`Deadline for State Class Members to postmark
`requests to opt-out or file objections to the
`Settlement (“Notice Deadline”)
`
`Within 30 calendar days after Final Approval
`Order
`Within 30 calendar days after the Court’s
`preliminary approval of the Settlement
`Within 10 business days after SSI receives the
`Class List
`60 days after Notice of Settlement are initially
`mailed
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`Effective Date
`
`Within 10 business days after the Notice
`Deadline
`
`
`Deadline for SSI to provide all counsel with a
`report showing (i) the names of Settlement
`Class Members; (ii) the Individual Settlement
`Payments owed to each Settlement Class
`Members; (iii) the final number of Settlement
`Class Members who have submitted objections
`or valid letters requesting exclusion from the
`Settlement; (iv) the estimated average and
`median recoveries per State Class Member; (v)
`the largest and smallest estimated recoveries to
`State Class Members; and (vi) the number of
`undeliverable Notices of Settlement.
`Deadline for filing of Final Approval Motion As provided above
`Final Approval Hearing
`No earlier than 30 days after the Notice
`Deadline
`The latest of the following dates: (i) if there
`are one or more objections to the settlement
`that are not subsequently withdrawn, then the
`date after the expiration of time for filing a
`notice of appeal of the Court’s Final Approval
`Order, assuming no appeal or request for
`review has been filed; (ii) if there is a timely
`objection and appeal by one or more
`objectors, then the date after such appeal or
`appeals are terminated (including any requests
`for rehearing) resulting in the final judicial
`approval of the Settlement; or (iii) if there are
`no timely objections to the settlement, or if
`one or more objections were filed but
`subsequently withdrawn before the date of
`Final Approval, then the first business day
`after the Court’s order granting Final
`Approval of the Settlement is entered
`Within 5 business days after final Settlement
`Award calculations are approved
`
`Deadline for SSI to calculate the employer
`share of taxes and provide Defendants with the
`total amount of Defendants’ Payroll Taxes
`Deadline for SSI to make payments under the
`Settlement to Participating Individuals, the
`LWDA, Class Representatives, Plaintiffs’
`counsel, and itself
`Check-cashing deadline
`Deadline for SSI to provide written
`certification of completion of administration of
`the Settlement to counsel for all Parties and the
`Court
`Deadline for SSI to tender uncashed check
`funds to cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work or
`redistribute such uncashed funds to
`Participating Individuals who cashed their
`Settlement Award checks
`
`Within 30 days after the Effective Date or as
`soon as reasonably practicable
`
`180 days after issuance
`Within 10 business days after the check
`cashing period
`
`As soon as practicable after check-cashing
`deadline
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Document 89 Filed 08/29/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Post-
`Distribution Accounting
`
`
`Within 21 days after the distribution of any
`uncashed funds
`
`18.
`The Court further ORDERS that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings
`in the Action, except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement, are stayed, and all deadlines
`are vacated.
`19.
`If for any reason the Court does not execute and file a Final Approval Order and
`Judgment, the proposed Settlement subject to this Order and all evidence and proceedings had in
`connection with the Settlement shall be null and void.
`20.
`The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in this Order or
`adjourn or continue the final approval hearing without further notice to the State Classes.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: August 29, 2022
`
`
`/s/ John A. Mendez
`THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
`SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD
`
`