Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. In re Volkswagen "clean Diesel" Mktg.

    MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Finding the Trust an appropriate cy pres beneficiary because " savvy, educated investor is hopefully more likely to identify signs of securities fraud, which furthers the Exchange Act's purpose of maintaining "fair and honest markets" (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78b)

    These preliminary-approval factors examine whether the settlement (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, and noncollusive negotiations, (2) has any obvious deficiencies, (3) improperly grants preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and (4) provides class members with an award that falls within the range of possible approval. See, e.g., id.; Ruch v. AM Retail Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-05352-MEJ, 2016 WL 1161453, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016); Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. C-12-02705 DMR, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014). These factors are considered below.

  2. Acosta v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

    Case No.15-cv-02128-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018)   Cited 8 times

    At this juncture, "[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class is appropriate if [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, [4] and falls within the range of possible approval." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-02705, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp.2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2007)). 1. The Fairness Factors

  3. Schuchardt v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark

    Case No. 15-cv-01329-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that "net worth" for the purposes of the FDCPA means balance sheet net worth, not fair market net worth including goodwill

    At this juncture, "[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class is appropriate if [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and [4] falls within the range of possible approval." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-02705, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). Ultimately, "[t]he initial decision to approve or reject a settlement proposal is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge."

  4. In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation

    C/w Case No. 12-CV-4059-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015)   Cited 20 times
    Granting preliminary approval after finding proposed settlement was "noncollusive," "lacks obvious deficiencies," and was "within the range of possible approval"

    At this juncture, "[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class is appropriate if [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, [4] and falls within the range of possible approval." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-02705, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). Ultimately, "[t]he initial decision to approve or reject a settlement proposal is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge."

  5. Deaver v. Compass Bank

    Case No. 13-cv-00222-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Granting preliminary approval of wage and hour settlement representing 10.7% of liabilities and also noting concerns better addressed at final approval following claims administration process

    At this juncture, "[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class is appropriate if [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, [4] and falls within the range of possible approval." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-02705, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). 1. The Fairness Factors

  6. Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.

    Case No. 13-cv-02377-JSC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014)

    At this juncture, "[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class is appropriate if [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, [4] and falls within the range of possible approval." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. C-12-02705 DMR, 2014 WL 2089938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (quoting In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). 1. Fairness factors

  7. Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc.

    Case No. 12-cv-05527-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Denying preliminary approval where proposed settlement "improperly seeks to compromise FLSA claims in a Rule 23 context"

    At a minimum, the $25,000 grossly exceeds the benchmark for incentive payments set by this District in cases where the court was inclined to award them. See, e.g., Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. C-12-02705 DMR, 2014 WL 2089938, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (noting concern with a $15,000 class representative incentive payment); Jacobs v. Cal. State Auto. Ass'n Inter-Ins. Bureau, No. C 07-0362 MHP, 2009 WL 3562871, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009) (rejecting a request for a $25,000 incentive payment as "quite high for this district").

  8. Stokes v. Interline Brands, Inc.

    Case No. 12-cv-05527-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    At a minimum, the $25,000 grossly exceeds the benchmark for incentive payments set by this District in cases where the court was inclined to award them. See, e.g., Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. C-12-02705 DMR, 2014 WL 2089938, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (noting concern with a $15,000 class representative incentive payment); Jacobs v. Cal. State Auto. Ass'n Inter-Ins. Bureau, No. C 07-0362 MHP, 2009 WL 3562871, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009) (rejecting a request for a $25,000 incentive payment as "quite high for this district").