Opinion
No. C 06-02846 SBA.
March 10, 2008
ORDER [Docket Nos. 23, 26]
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Order Provisionally Certifying Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Proposed Notices to Class Members (the "Motion") [Docket No. 26], requesting the Court (1) preliminarily certify two sub-classes for purposes of settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b); (2) preliminarily certify a proposed collection of plaintiffs for notice and settlement under the Fair Labor and Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"); and (3) preliminarily approve the parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant; Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") [Docket No. 25].
After reading and considering the papers presented, the Court is inclined to approve the Motion, if the parties can address the concerns identified below to the Court's satisfaction. Specifically:
(1) The Court would like to know whether any other lawsuits have been filed against Oracle Corp., regarding the same issues giving rise to this lawsuit, and if so, the details of such lawsuits.
(2) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1), the Court is inclined to approve Schneider Wallace as class counsel, based on the information submitted. The Court, however, is not inclined to approve The Law Office of Christine Djernaes as class counsel, based on the lack of information submitted.
(3) The Court is not inclined to approve the parties' proposed notice. The Court is concerned the proposed notice to the proposed class members under Rule 23, as well as to the proposed collective members under the FLSA, could better distinguish how the class action, as opposed to the collective action, creates different rights and responsibilities for the different types of members, and how opting in, opting out, or doing nothing would affect the different members in different ways. In this regard, the Court is specifically concerned with parts VII and VIII of the notice, which could more clearly distinguish these concepts for the proposed members.
(4) Lastly, if the parties wish the federal Court to assume continuing jurisdiction over what would essentially remain a contractual dispute, the Court is inclined to do so, contingent on the parties consenting to have all such matters heard by a magistrate judge.
In light of the foregoing, the Court is keeping the hearing on calendar for March 11, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., on the calendar. In preparation for tomorrow's hearing, the Court would like the parties to meet and confer regarding these issues, file proposed solutions or responses by 4:00 p.m., today, March 10, 2008, and be prepared to discuss these issues and today's filing at tomorrow's hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.