Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hirsi v. The Hertz Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 27, 2018

HASSAN HIRSI, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HERTZ TRANSPORTING, INC, a Delaware corporation, FIREFLY RENT A CAR LLC, a Delaware company and DTG OPERATIONS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

          HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Stipulated Motion”). Dkt. #47. The Court has considered the motions, together with the supporting declarations and exhibits.

         This Court has reviewed the Parties' Conditional Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this matter.[1]

         Based on this Court's review of the Agreement and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court concludes, upon preliminary examination, that the Agreement and Settlement appear fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval, and that a hearing should and will be held after notice to the Settlement Class (as defined in Paragraph B below) to confirm that the Agreement and Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether the Settlement should be approved and final judgment entered in this action based upon the Agreement.

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         A. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.

         The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the Agreement resulted from extensive arm's length negotiations; and (b) the Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing on the approval of the Settlement.

         B. Class Certification For Settlement Purposes Only.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class:

All employees of The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Transporting, Inc., Firefly Rent-A-Car, LLC, and DTG Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Hertz”) who: (a) at any time during the period from January 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015, reported to (i.e., clocked in and clocked out at) a worksite within the City of SeaTac; (b) can be ascertained from Hertz's records as having had a base hourly wage rate at any time during this same period that was less than the minimum hourly wage prescribed by the City of SeaTac's Ordinance Setting Minimum Employment Standards for Hospitality and Transportation Industry Employers, City of SeaTac Municipal Code Chapter 7.45 (the “Ordinance”); and (c) prior to March 1, 2018, did not file a wage complaint against Hertz with L&I pursuant to the 2006 Wage Payment Act, RCW 49.48.082-.087, asserting a claim of underpayment of wages during this same period premised upon an alleged violation of the Ordinance (“L&I Wage Claim”) (provided, however, that any person who filed, but timely withdrew, such an L&I Wage Claim prior to March 1, 2018, is included in the Putative Class).

         The Court finds that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied for settlement purposes. The Court also finds that the predominance, manageability, and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied for settlement purposes.

         Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff is appointed Class Representative; and
2. Plaintiff's Counsel are hereby appointed and designated as “Class Counsel” and are authorized to act on behalf of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.