United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement (Dkt. No.
185), Plaintiffs' declaration from class counsel (Dkt.
No. 186), and Defendant's notice of proposed settlement
(Dkt. No. 187). This litigation involves Defendant's
alleged wage and hour violations. (See generally
Dkt. No. 114.) The Court previously certified the following
class: “All current and former employees of [Defendant]
who, at any time from December 30, 2011 through the date of
final disposition, worked as drivers for the company while
residing in the state of Washington.” (Dkt. No. 117 at
13.) The Court also certified the following subclasses:
i. Individuals who (1) meet the criteria for membership in
the class, and (2) received less than 100% of what they would
have been paid hourly, including overtime, using the local
ii. Individuals who (1) meet the criteria for membership in
the class, and (2) were enrolled in the per diem pay plan and
received $0.02 less per mile as a result.
Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”), which
sets forth the terms and conditions of the settlement and
release of claims against Defendant. Having reviewed and
considered the Settlement Agreement and all of the filings,
records, and other submissions, the Court finds upon a
preliminary examination that the Agreement appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will
be held after notice to the Settlement Class in order to
confirm that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and to determine whether the Settlement Agreement
should be finally approved pursuant to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement
(“Final Approval Hearing”).
the Court FINDS, CONCLUDES and ORDERS as follows:
1. Unless otherwise provided herein, all capitalized terms in
this Order shall have the same meaning as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 186-1).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this Action and personal jurisdiction over the Parties and
the Settlement Class.
3. The Court finds that (a) the Settlement Agreement resulted
from extensive arm's-length negotiations, with
participation of an experienced mediator, and (b) the
Settlement Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice thereof
to members of the Settlement Class and the Final Approval
Hearing described below.
4. The Settlement Class includes all current and former
employees of Schneider who, at any time from December 30,
2011 through the date of preliminary approval of the
Settlement, worked as drivers for Schneider while residing in
Washington. The Settlement Class will not include any persons
who validly request exclusion from the Class.
5. The Court has previously appointed Plaintiffs Balapuwaduge
Mendis, Michael Feola, Andrea Arbaugh, and Edward Ash as
Class Representatives and finds that for settlement purposes,
the Class Representatives have and will continue to fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class.
6. The Court has previously appointed Rekhi & Wolk, P.S.
and the Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC as Class Counsel and
finds that for settlement purposes, Class Counsel have and
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
7. The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement
Agreement is fundamentally fair, ...