Opinion
3:20-CV-00371-JO-MSB
12-05-2022
ARTHUR THOMPSON, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NSC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability corporation; BAE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798), Scott A. Brooks (SBN 160115) MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff Arthur Thompson, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated
Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798), Scott A. Brooks (SBN 160115) MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff Arthur Thompson, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
ORDER
Hon. Jinsook Ohta, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Arthur Thompson's (“Plaintiff') Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement came on regularly for hearing on November 30, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jinsook Ohta, district judge presiding. The Court, having considered Plaintiffs motion, the Declaration of Matthew J. Matern and all exhibits thereto, including the Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release (“Stipulation”), the Declaration of Arthur Thompson, and for good cause appearing, HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that Plaintiff and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class Members, the proposed Settlement was negotiated at arm's length, the relief provided to the Class Members is adequate; and the proposed Settlement treats Class Members equitably relative to each other. The Court therefore finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement meets the requirements for preliminary approval.
2. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Class Action Settlement, attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation. The Court finds that the mailing of the Notice Packets to each Class Member's last known address as updated is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the class action, proposed Settlement, and the final approval hearing to all persons entitled to such notice in full compliance with the requirements of due process and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the class meets the requirements for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, in that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members; (3) Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members; (4) Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class Members; (5) questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members; and (6) a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
4. The Court hereby provisionally certifies the following class:
All individuals employed by NSC Technologies, Inc. and placed to work at the BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. facility at 2205 E. Belt Street in San Diego, California, as hourly non-exempt employees between January 10, 2016, and August 8, 2021.
5. The Court finds that the members of the FLSA Settlement Class are similarly situated and hereby provisionally certifies the following FLSA Settlement Class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b):
All individuals employed by NSC Technologies, Inc. and placed to work at the BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. facility at 2205 E. Belt Street in San Diego, California, as hourly non-exempt employees between January 10, 2016, and August 8, 2021.
6. The Court appoints Plaintiff Arthur Thompson as class representative.
7. The Court appoints Matthew J. Matern and Scott A. Brooks of Matern Law Group, PC to serve as class counsel.
8. The Court appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Settlement Administrator. The Court authorizes the Settlement Administrator to mail the Notice Packets to the Class Members and to publish the Publication Notice, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.
9. A hearing to determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class Members and whether the Settlement should be finally approved (“Final Approval Hearing”) shall be held on March 29, 2023 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, located at 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, California, 92101. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to Class Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications or motions arising out of or connected with the Settlement.
10. The Parties are ordered to carry out the Settlement according to the terms of the Settlement.
11. The Court sets the following deadlines:
Deadline for Defendants to provide Class List to Settlement Administrator
Within 10 calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail Notice Packets to Class Members
Within 10 calendar days after receiving Class List from Defendants
Deadline for Class Members to submit a Request for Exclusion Form, Notice of Objection, or dispute (“Response Deadline”)
30 calendar days after Notice Packets are mailed by the Settlement Administrator to Class Members
Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
10 days after Response Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
10 days after Response Deadline
IT IS SO ORDERED.