1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 1
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
The Honorable Robert Lasnik
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MOHAMED A. HUSSEIN, an individual, and HASSAN HIRSI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant.
))))))))) )
Case No. 2:16-cv-00278 RSL STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 23, 2018
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff Mohamed A. Hussein (collectively, “Plaintiff”) and Defendant ABM Aviation,
Inc. (formerly operating as Air Serv Corporation) (“Defendant”) respectfully move the Court for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement (“Settlement”) reached between
Plaintiff and Defendant. For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and the supporting
documents, the Settlement is fair and reasonable and serves the best interests of the Putative Class
Members. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court take the following initial
steps in the settlement approval process: (1) appoint Class Members Hodan Ahmed Dahir and
Mohamed Yusef as additional Class Representatives, (2) preliminarily approve the Settlement,
including the Maximum Settlement Amount and calculation of Individual Allocable Shares; (3)
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 2
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
approve the fixed payment to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for fees and costs; (4) approve the proposed
notice plan, settlement notice form, and exclusion form; and (5) schedule the final fairness hearing
and related dates as proposed by the Parties.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Factual and Procedural Background
This is a class action for payment of wages claimed by current and former employees of
Defendant at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. In 2013, following a vote on a citizens’
initiative, the City of SeaTac passed Section 7.45 of the City of SeaTac City Code (“the
Ordinance”). See Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 183 Wn.2d 770, 778 (2015). The Ordinance
identifies certain employers as either Transportation Employers or Hospitality Employers and
mandates a minimum wage (beginning at $15 in 2014 and increasingly annually thereafter) for
certain employees of those employers. Id. Defendant is alleged to be a Transportation Employer
and the persons who fall into the class are alleged to be Transportation Workers, defined as “any
nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory individual employed by a Transportation Employer.” Dkt. #1, Ex.
A (“Complaint”).
In 2014, a group of plaintiffs,1 not including Defendant, challenged the Ordinance in King
County Superior Court. Filo Foods, 183 Wn.2d at 779. The Filo Foods plaintiffs initially
challenged whether the Ordinance was properly placed on the ballot in the first instance. The
Superior Court held that it was not, but that decision was reversed by Appellate Division 1. Id. 2
1 Filo Foods, LLC; BF Foods, LLC; Alaska Airlines, Inc.; and The Washington Restaurant Association. 2 This challenge addressed the constitutionality of a state statute that required the striking of all initiative signatures
of a person who had signed multiple times, as opposed to merely striking all signatures after the first one. Division
1 held it to be unconstitutional not to count the first signature and in 2014 the legislature amended that section of the
RCW consistent with Division 1’s holding.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 3
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
The state Supreme Court stayed its decision on whether to review that decision, and the Ordinance
was placed on the ballot and narrowly passed. The Filo Foods plaintiffs then challenged the
Ordinance on its merits, arguing that it violated state law and was preempted by federal law.
Shortly before the Ordinance’s January 1, 2014 effective date, the Superior Court agreed with the
Filo Foods plaintiffs, in part, and held that the Ordinance was inapplicable as applied to the airport.
That decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed the Superior Court in a
ruling dated August 20, 2015. See id. generally. Because the Filo Foods plaintiffs filed a motion
to reconsider that decision, however, the Supreme Court’s mandate did not issue until December
1, 2015.
Because of the Superior Court’s ruling invalidating the Ordinance at the airport, a large
number of employers alleged to be Transportation Employers and Hospitality Employers
continued to pay wages that were less than the minimum wage established in the Ordinance. Many
of these employers, including Defendant, continue to question the validity of the Ordinance on
issues of federal preemption arising under the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor
Act, and the Airline Deregulation Act and its constitutionality. Following the Supreme Court’s
ruling finding the Ordinance to be applicable at the airport, these employers began to pay the wage
rates mandated by the Ordinance. Defendant began paying Ordinance wage rates effective
February 12, 2016. Dozens of lawsuits were filed against putative Transportation Employers and
Hospitality Employers based on their alleged failure to pay the wage rates mandated by the
Ordinance retroactive to January 1, 2014. This action was one such suit. It was originally filed in
King County Superior Court on February 4, 2016. Defendant removed the case to federal court
on February 25, 2016. Dkt. #1, Ex. A.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
On March 1, 2017, this Court granted the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Class Certification,
Appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representatives. Dkt. #24. A Class was certified under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) as defined below:
All employees of Air Serv who have been Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from January 1, 2014 to February 12, 2016 who can be ascertained from Air Serv’s records as having been paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050 and who have not recovered back wages under separate legal action.
Id. The Court also appointed Mohamed A. Hussein and Hassan Hirsi as Class Representatives and
the law firms of Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC and the Law Offices of Daniel Whitmore as class
counsel. Id.
B. Proposed Class Representatives.
Following certification of the Class, Class Representative Hassan Hirsi chose to join a
parallel action pending in King County Superior Court, Isse v. Air Serv, King County Superior
Court Case No. 17-2-02687-5 SEA. As such, Mr. Hirsi is ineligible to be a putative class member
and cannot effectively serve in his capacity as Class Representative. To remedy this and to ensure
Class Members’ interests are protected by a quorum of diligent representatives, Mr. Hussein seeks
the appointment of Class Members Hodan Ahmed Dahir and Mohamed Yusef as additional Class
Representatives.
Ms. Dahir was employed as a cabin cleaner with Air Serv between June 2013 and
September 2016. Before February 2016, Ms. Dahir was paid between $9.00 and $10.00 per hour.
Ms. Dahir completed high school in the United States. Mr. Mohamed Yusef was employed as a
cabin cleaner with Air Serv between September 2012 and March 2015. Mr. Yusef was paid
approximately $8.75 per hour out, and attended high school in his native-country of Somalia.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 5
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Both Ms. Dahir and Mr. Yusef are members of the Court-certified Class and have agreed
to represent the interests of their fellow Class Members. Neither individual has any individual
legal issue which would present a conflict of interest or disqualify them under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4). See Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. #15, pg. 6.
C. Terms of the Proposed Hussein Settlement.
On November 2, 2017, the Parties participated in mediation with well-respected mediator
Teresa Wakeen of Wakeen & Associates. Turner Decl. ¶3. With the assistance of Ms. Wakeen,
the Parties reached an initial resolution of this case after a lengthy mediation session. Id.
Thereafter, the parties negotiated the final terms of the settlement agreement. Id. At all times the
negotiations were adversarial, non-collusive, and at arm’s length. Id. The mediation and
subsequent negotiations culminated into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the
“Agreement”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant. The Agreement and attachments are attached to
the Turner Declaration as Exhibit 1.
The settlement details are contained in the Agreement. For purpose of preliminary
approval, the following summarizes the Agreement’s terms.
i. The Settlement Terms.
The Agreement required Defendant pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of up to $7.3
million dollars to resolve the claims of all Putative Class Members.3 The Settlement also included
a fixed payment of $175,000 for attorney fees and costs (“Attorney Fee Award”) that was
negotiated separately so as not to diminish the class members’ recovery. The GSA is reduced by
3 At the time the parties participated in the Mediation and negotiated the Maximum Settlement Amount, they had
not, yet, settled the related matter Isse, et al. v. Air Serv Corporation (see Section D). Thereafter, the Isse matter
settled and 220 Isse Plaintiffs opted out of this Action, thereby reducing the Maximum Settlement Amount to a
maximum of $3,070,300.33.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 6
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
the amounts paid out to the Isse plaintiffs, resulting in a Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”)
of $3,070,300.33, inclusive of the Attorney Fee Award. The Settlement contemplated payment
for 100% of back wages and sick pay4, plus a premium for interest, and was inclusive of all payroll
taxes. The amount distributable to Class Members after deductions from the MSA is the Net
Settlement Amount (“NSA”).
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant
will coordinate the calculation of an Individual Allocable Share for each Putative Class Member,
using Defendant’s payroll data for hours worked and wages paid during the period of January 1,
2014 to February 12, 2016. Defendant’s expert has created a spreadsheet from Defendant’s payroll
data. The spreadsheet includes the Putative Class Member’s names, hours worked between
January 1, 2014 and February 12, 2016, wage rates paid for hours worked, wage rates owed per
the Ordinance, and sick leave accrued. From this data, the expert has calculated the total amount
of back wages and sick leave payments for each Putative Class Member, plus a portion of the
remainder of the NSA for interest. The total sum for back wages, sick leave and interest for each
Putative Class Member, less a portion of the payroll taxes and expenses, will be the Individual
Allocable Share. In consideration for the payments, Settling Class Members will release,
relinquish, and forever discharge any and all claims that exist or might exist against Defendant that
relate to the Settling Class Members’ compensation through the date of Final Approval (as defined
in the Agreement), including but not limited to all claims for minimum wage, overtime, meal
periods, rest breaks, sick or other leave, and wage statements or wage records. The released claims
4 Although payment for retroactive sick pay under the Ordinance was not sought in this lawsuit, Defendant agreed to
pay an addition sum for sick pay as part of this Settlement.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 7
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
include, but are not necessarily limited to, claims arising under any provision of the Ordinance,
the Washington State Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 et seq., the Washington Wage Rebate Act,
RCW 49.52 et seq., the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, RCW 49.12 et seq., the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 USC 201 et seq., and any claim to attorneys’ fees and costs based on the claims
listed above.
ii. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ Counsel the total sum of $175,000 for attorney fees
and costs. This payment is a fixed amount that was negotiated separately and is not a percentage
of the Putative Class Member’s recovery but will be deducted from the MSA.
iii. Service Awards.
If approved by the Court, the Settlement Class Representatives will each receive a $1,000
Service Award. The Service Award will be deducted from the Maximum Settlement Amount
before calculating the Individual Allocable Shares.
D. Related State Case: Isse, et al. v. Air Serv Corporation
On February 7, 2017, a group of Putative Class Members filed a lawsuit in King County
Superior Court titled Isse v. Air Serv, King County Superior Court Case No. 17-2-02687-5 SEA.
The Isse suit also made claims for violation of the Ordinance, including for unpaid sick leave. The
Isse plaintiffs amended their Complaint on March 20, 2017, April 24, 2017, and, again, on June
26, 2017, each time adding additional plaintiffs, until there were a total of 220 plaintiffs in the Isse
case. The Isse plaintiffs brought their claims as individuals and not as a class. As noted above,
Class Representative Hassan Hirsi joined the Isse action as a plaintiff and can no longer serve as a
representative in this action.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 8
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
On November 3, 2017, counsel for the parties in Isse reached agreement on the terms of a
tentative settlement, which was subsequently submitted for approval in King County Superior
Court. All 220 Isse plaintiffs signed individual settlement agreements and opt out forms.
Payments were made in January 2018 and the parties stipulated to dismissal of the action in
February 2018. Accordingly, the Isse plaintiffs do not qualify as Settling Class Members per the
definition of the Certified Class and the terms of the Settlement Agreement and payments made to
them are subtracted from the Maximum Settlement Amount negotiated in this Action.
E. Settlement Payments
Putative Class Members who receive settlement payments under a separate legal action
(e.g., including the Isse matter), or who timely elect to opt out, are not eligible to participate in
this Settlement. After the opt-out period, the Settlement Administrator, in conjunction with
Counsel for the Parties, will determine who qualifies as a Settling Class Member. The Individual
Allocable Shares for the persons who do not qualify as Settling Class Members, either because
they participated in the Isse settlement or other settlement or because they opted out for other
reasons, will be deducted from the Maximum Settlement Amount.
Upon Final Approval and expiration of any appeal period, the Settlement Administrator
will pay the Individual Allocable Shares to the Settling Class Members. Checks will remain
payable for one year. Any checks unclaimed by Settling Class Members will be transferred to
the Washington State Unclaimed Property Fund after one year.
F. Settlement Administration and Notice Process.
The Parties have agreed to use Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator to oversee the
processing of Individual Allocable Share amounts; to track persons who elect to opt out of the
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 9
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Settlement or who are known to have signed individual settlement agreements and thus do not
qualify as Settling Class Members; and to make the payments and distributions required under the
Settlement Agreement. Settlement Administration costs will be deducted from the Maximum
Settlement Amount. If the Settlement Administration costs exceed $20,000, the excess costs shall
be shared equally by Defendant and Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Turner Dec., ¶ 8.
The Parties have agreed upon class notice, which is attached as Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 of
the Turner Declaration. Additionally, the Parties have agreed that, within thirty (30) calendar days
of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Notice of
Settlement Forms and Opt-Out Forms to all Class Members based on last known addresses
provided by Defendant. Id. ¶ 10, Ex. 1. The Settlement Administrator will also trace undeliverable
mailings and conduct skip tracing to search for a better address, and track and respond to responses
and inquiries made by Putative Class Members. Id.
Putative Class Members will have thirty (30) calendar dates from the date of the initial
mailing to request exclusion (opt out) from the Settlement and to submit objections. Id. The
Settlement Administrator shall make payments to the Settling Class Members thirty (30) calendar
days from the date of entry of the Order of Final Approval. Id.
III. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
A. The Settlement Approval Process.
As a matter of “express public policy,” federal courts strongly favor and encourage
settlements, particularly in class actions and other complex mattes, where the inherent costs,
delays, and risks of continued litigation might otherwise overwhelm any potential the class could
hope to obtain. See Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 9 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 10
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
the “strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where complex class action
litigation is concerned”); see also William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”)
§ 13.1 (5th ed. updated) (citing cases). Here, the proposed Settlement is the best vehicle for
Settling Class Members to receive the relief to which they may be entitled in a prompt and efficient
manner.
The Manual for Complex Litigation describes a three-step procedure for approval of class
action settlements: (1) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) dissemination of notice
of the settlement to all affected class members; and (3) a “fairness hearing” or “final approval
hearing,” at which class members may be heard regarding the settlement, and at which evidence
and argument concerning the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement may be
presented. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) (“MCL 4th”) §§ 21.632 – 21.634, at 432 – 34
(2014). This procedure safeguards class members’ due process rights and enables the court to
fulfill its role as the guardian of class interests. See Newberg § 13.1.
With this motion, the Parties request that the Court take the first step in the settlement
approval process by granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement. The
purpose of preliminary evaluation of proposed class action settlements is to determine whether the
settlement “is within the range of possible approval” and thus whether notice to the class of the
settlement’s terms and the schedule of a formal fairness hearing is worthwhile. Newberg § 13.13.
The decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the Court’s sound
discretion. See City of Seattle, 955 F.2d at 1276 (in context of class action settlement, appellate
court cannot “substitute [its] notions of fairness for those of the [trial] judge and the parties to the
agreement,” and will reverse only upon strong showing of abuse of discretion) (quoting Officers
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 10 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 11
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 626 (9th Cir. 1982)). The Court’s grant of
preliminary approval will allow the Putative Class Members to receive direct notice of the
proposed Settlement Agreement’s terms and the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing, at
which Settling Class Members may be heard regarding the Settlement Agreement, at which time
further evidence and argument concerning the settlement’s fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness
may be presented. See MCL 4th § 21.634.
B. The Criteria for Settlement Approval Are Satisfied.
The Ninth Circuit puts “a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-
collusive, negotiated resolution.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009).
To assess a settlement proposal, courts must balance the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action
status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and
the state of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental
participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. In re Online DVD-
Rental Antitrust Litig. (“In re Online DVD”), 779 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2015).
1. The Settlement is a Product of Serious, Informed, and Arm’s-Length
Negotiations.
The Court’s role is to ensure that “the agreement is not product of fraud or overreaching
by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair,
reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th
Cir. 1998) (internal quotes and citations omitted); see also In re Online DVD, 779 F.3d at 944
(noting settlement in class actions “present unique due process concerns for absent class
members,” including the risk that class counsel “may collude with the defendants”) (quoting In re
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 11 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 12
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2010)).
The Settlement Agreement is the result of intensive, arm’s-length negotiations between
experienced attorneys for both parties who are competent practitioners in class action litigation in
general and with the legal and factual issues of this case in particular. (Turner Decl. ¶ 3).
Plaintiffs’ counsel are particularly experienced in the issues surrounding the Ordinance and cases
similar to this case. See generally id. The Settlement Agreement was the result of a full-day, in-
person mediation on November 2, 2017, with mediator Teresa Wakeen. Id.
2. The Settlement Agreement Provides Full Relief to the Settlement Class and
Treats All Settlement Class Members Fairly.
The Settlement Agreement required Defendant to allocate up to $7.3MM as a Gross
Settlement Amount, from which Counsel for the Parties calculate Individual Allocable Shares
based on Defendant’s payroll records after subtracting payments of $4,404,699.67 made to the Isse
plaintiffs. Thus, the total adjusted MSA, inclusive of the Attorney Fee Award negotiated
separately from the GSA is $3,070,300.33.
The Individual Allocable Shares will consist of full wages and sick pay for the period
January 1, 2014 to February 12, 2016, plus a premium for interest, less a portion of the payroll
taxes. Significantly, no claim for sick pay was plead in this matter, due to concerns over class
certification if such a claim were pled. Defendant agreed to increase the Maximum Settlement
Amount following the settlement of the Isse action (which included a claim for sick pay) to ensure
fairness to all Putative Class Members. Further, the Settlement Agreement provides that no
unclaimed funds will revert to Defendant.
3. The Settlement Agreement is Fair and Reasonable in Light of the Alleged
Claims and Defenses.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 12 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 13
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
The Complaint asserts claims for all unpaid wages under the Ordinance plus interest,
attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Complaint also seeks payment of double damages under RCW
49.52.070. Defendant has asserted challenges to the Ordinance based on the National Labor
Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Airline Deregulation Act, and the Dormant Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution and challenged the retroactivity of the Filo Foods decision. These
issues were hotly contested in the Filo Foods case, and although the state Supreme Court’s decision
favored the interests of the affected employees, no federal court has yet to address these arguments,
all of which are based on federal law. Any one of these challenges, if successful, could result in
the dismissal of the Putative Class Members’ claims in their entirety. Additionally, Defendant has
asserted a defense to double damages, claiming that a bona fide dispute as to its obligation to pay
the minimum wage under the Ordinance exists until the Ordinance is held to be retroactive and all
federal challenges have been adjudicated by a federal court.
4. The Stage of Litigation and State of the Evidence Adduced Supports
Preliminary Approval.
The stage of litigation and state of the evidence supports preliminary approval of a global
settlement. The parties both possess the empirical records indicating employee identification
numbers, hours worked, rates of pay (both straight and overtime), and dates of payment. Nothing
further is required to compute each Putative Class Member’s claim.
C. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Fees and Costs Are Reasonable.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel has agreed to accept a fixed fee of $175,000 for all fees and costs
incurred and to be incurred. Turner Decl. ¶ 6. Defendant has agreed to pay this sum in addition to
the Maximum Settlement Amount, so as not to dilute the recovery of Settling Class Members. The
sum is reasonable under the circumstances of this case and compared to attorney fee awards in
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 13 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 14
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
comparable cases; it should be approved by the Court. Id.
D. The Requested Incentive Award is Reasonable
Subject to Court approval, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Class
Representatives may be paid reasonable service award of $1,000 each. Id., ¶ 10, Ex. 1. Service
awards, which serve as premiums in addition to any claims-based recovery from the settlement,
promote public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of representative
lawsuits. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 – 59 (9th Cir. 2009). A stipend
may also be appropriate to “compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class
to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and sometimes, to
recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general.” Id. at 958. Unlike unnamed Class
Members, who will enjoy the benefits of the representative’s efforts without taking any personal
action, Mr. Hussein, Ms. Dahir and Mr. Yusef have stuck their necks out to represent the interests
of the class. Id. Additionally, the award sought of $1,000 per representative is reasonable in light
of the substantial prospective relief obtained by the Putative Class Members. See, e.g., Pelletz v.
Weyerhauser Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1329–30 & n.9 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (approving $7,500
service awards and collecting decisions approving awards ranging from $5,000 to $40,000).
E. The Proposed Notice Program is Constitutionally Sound.
Rule 23(e)(1) requires the Court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by” a proposed settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1); see also
MCL 4th § 21.312. The best practicable notice is that which is “reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 14 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 15
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
306, 314 (1950). According to the Manual for Complex Litigation, a settlement notice should do
the following:
• Define the class;
• Describe clearly the options open to the class members and the deadlines for taking action;
• Describe the essential terms of the proposed settlement;
• Disclose any special benefits provided to the class representatives;
• Indicate the time and place of the hearing to consider approval of the settlement, and the method for objecting to or opting out of the settlement;
• Explain the procedures for allocating and distributing settlement funds, and, if the settlement provides different kinds of relief for different categories of class members, clearly set out those variations;
• Provide information that will enable class members to calculate or at least estimate their individual recoveries; and
• Prominently display the address and phone number of class counsel and the procedure for making inquiries.
The proposed form of noticed, attached as Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 of the Turner Declaration
(“Notice”), satisfies all of the above criteria. The Notice is clear, straightforward, and provides
Putative Class Members with enough information to evaluate whether to participate in the
Settlement. Thus, the Notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 808 (1985) (explaining a settlement notice must provide settlement class
members with an opportunity to present their objections to the settlement).
The Parties envision direct notice to current or last known address via U.S. Mail to
Putative Class Members. This Notice Program satisfies due process especially because Rule 23
does not require that each potential class member receive actual notice of the class action.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 15 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 16
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Mullane, 339 U.S. at 316 (explaining that the Supreme Court “has not hesitated to approve of
resort to publication as a customary substitute in [a] class of cases where it is not reasonably
possible or practicable to give more adequate warning”).
All in all, the Notice Program constitutes the best practicable method under the
circumstances, provides due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class, and fully satisfies the
requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
F. Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing is Appropriate.
The last step in the settlement approval process is a final approval hearing at which the
Court may hear all evidence and argument necessary to make its settlement evaluation.
Proponents of the settlement may explain the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement,
and offer argument in support of final approval. The Court will determine after the final
approval hearing whether the settlement should be approved, and whether to enter a final order
and judgment under Rule 23(e). The Parties request that the Court set a date for a hearing on
final approval at the Court’s convenience, but no later than 100 days after entry of an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and 30 days after the objection/exclusion deadline, and
schedule further settlement proceedings pursuant to the schedule set forth below:
ACTION DATE
Preliminary Approval Order Entered At the Court’s Discretion
Initial Mailing Date
Within 21 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
Notice Deadline
Within 45 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
Exclusion/Objection Deadline 30 days after Notice Deadline
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 16 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 17
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Fee Motion Submitted 45 days after Notice Deadline
Final Approval Brief and Response to Objections
45 days after Notice Deadline
Final Approval Hearing / Noting Date Between 100-140 days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
Final Approval Order Entered At the Court’s discretion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court (1) grant
preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) approve the proposed notice plan; and (3) schedule
the final fairness hearing and related dates.
DATED this 23rd day of March, 2018.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
/s/ Duncan C. Turner___________
Duncan C. Turner, WSBA #20597 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE
/s/Daniel R. Whitmore
Daniel R. Whitmore, WSBA #24012 2626 15th Avenue West, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: (206) 329-8400 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES
/s/ Jeffrey A. James
Jeffrey A. James, WSBA #18277 Darren A. Feider, WSBA #22430 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 17 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 18
2:16-cv-00278 RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone: (425) 454-4233 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32 Filed 03/23/18 Page 18 of 18
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 1 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Honorable Robert Lasnik
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MOHAMED A. HUSSEIN, an individual, and HASSAN HIRSI, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant.
))))))))) )
Case No. 2:16-cv-00278 RSL [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES
Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class
Action Settlement and Appointment of Class Representatives (the “Stipulated Motion”). The
Court has considered the Stipulated Motion and attachments thereto. This Court has also
reviewed the Parties’ 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
1 For purposes of this Order, capitalized terms used below shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Stipulated Motion, unless otherwise defined.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 2 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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 described in Paragraph C 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 the 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, Representatives, and Counsel.
On March 1, 2017, this Court granted the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representatives. Dkt. #24. A Class was
certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) as defined below:
All employees of Air Serv who have been Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from January 1, 2014 to February 12, 2016 who can be ascertained from Air Serv’s records as having been paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050 and who have not recovered back wages under separate legal action.
Id. The Court also appointed Mohamed A. Hussein and Hassan Hirsi as Class Representatives
and the law firm of Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC as class counsel. Id.
Following certification of the Class, Class Representative Hassan Hirsi chose to join a
parallel action pending in King County Superior Court, Isse v. Air Serv, King County Superior
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 3 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Court Case No. 17-2-02687-5 SEA. As such, Mr. Hirsi cannot effectively serve in his capacity
as Class Representative. To remedy this and to ensure Class Members’ interests are protected by
a quorum of diligent representatives, Mr. Hussein seeks the appointment of Class Members
Hodan Ahmed Dahir and Mohamed Yusef as additional Class Representatives.
Ms. Dahir was employed as a cabin cleaner with Air Serv between June 2013 and
September 2016. Before February 2016, Ms. Dahir was paid between $9.00 and $10.00 per hour.
Ms. Dahir completed high school in the United States. Mr. Mohamed Yusef was employed as a
cabin cleaner with Air Serv between September 2012 and March 2015. Mr. Yusef was paid
approximately $8.75 per hour, and attended high school in his native-country of Somalia.
Both individuals are members of the Court-certified Class, were not Plaintiffs in the Isse
matter, and have agreed to represent the interests of their fellow Class Members. Neither
individual has any individual legal issue which would present a conflict of interest or disqualify
them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). See Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. #15, pg.
6. Accordingly, the Court approves Ms. Dahir and Mr. Yusef as Class Representatives.
C. Settlement Hearing.
A final approval hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) shall be held before the Honorable
Robert Lasnik on __________________ as set forth in the Notice to the Settlement Class
(described in Paragraph D below), to determine whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and should be approved. Papers in support of final approval of the Agreement, the
incentive awards to the Class Representatives, and Class Counsel’s application for an award of
attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses (the “Fee Application”) shall be filed with the Court
according to the schedule set forth in Paragraph M below. If the Settlement Hearing is
postponed, adjourned, or continued by order of the Court, the Parties shall notify the Settlement
Class by posting the change on the Settlement Website. After the Settlement Hearing, the
Court may enter a settlement order and final judgment in accordance with the Agreement that
will adjudicate the rights of the Settlement Class Members with respect to the Released Claims
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 4 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
being settled. The scope of the Released Claims shall be a full and complete release of any and
all claims, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, arising under any provisions of
Proposition 1 and Chapter 7.45 et seq. of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code, the Washington
Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
D. Class Notice.
Class Notice shall be sent within twenty-one (21) days following entry of this Order.
E. Mail Notice.
The Settlement Administrator (Simpluris) will provide mail notice to persons in the
Settlement Class for whom the Defendant possesses a mailing address. Mail Notice will be
sent via direct mail to the most recent mailing address as reflected in reasonably available
employment records of the Defendant. Skip tracing shall be performed by the Settlement
Administrator for all returned mail.
F. Findings Concerning Class Notice.
The Court finds that the foregoing program of Class Notice and the manner of its
dissemination is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably
calculated to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action and their right to
object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the
Class Notice program is reasonable, that it constitutes due, adequate and sufficient notice to all
persons entitled to receive notice and that it meets the requirements of due process and FRCP
23. The Court hereby approves the Notice in substantially the same form as that attached to the
Declaration of Duncan C. Turner.
G. Administration.
The Court confirms that it is appropriate for the Defendant to provide the information
necessary for the Settlement Administrator to provide the notice contemplated herein and to
administer the settlement, including names, addresses and Individual account information.
H. Exclusion from the Settlement Class.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 5 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt out by sending a written
request to a designated address within thirty (30) days after the Notice Deadline. All
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out in accordance with the terms set forth herein
will be bound by all determinations and judgments in the Action. Exclusion requests must be
signed and include the following statement: “I request to be excluded from the class settlement
in Hussein., et al., v. Air Serv Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00278-RSL.” The Settlement
Administrator will retain a copy of all requests for exclusion. Not later than 15 days from the
exclusion deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall provide Class Counsel with all
objections received, which shall then be filed with the Court.
I. Objections and Appearances.
Any person in the Settlement Class who has not timely submitted a valid request for
exclusion from the Settlement Class, and thus is a Settlement Class Member, may appear at the
Final Approval Hearing to argue that the proposed Settlement should not be approved and/or to
oppose the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and the incentive
awards to the Class Representatives.
1. In order to be heard at the hearing, the person must make any objection in
writing and file it with the Court not later than thirty (30) days after the
Notice Deadline. Any objections that are not timely filed and mailed shall be
forever barred.
2. In order to be heard at the hearing, the person also must file with the Court
and serve on all Parties a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Court.
J. Further Papers In Support Of Settlement And Fee Application.
The deadline to respond to objections shall be fifteen (15) days following the
Objection/Exclusion deadline.
K. Effect of Failure to Approve the Agreement.
In the event the Agreement is not approved by the Court, or for any reason the Parties
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 6 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
fail to obtain a Final Judgment as contemplated in the Agreement, or the Agreement
is terminated pursuant to its terms for any reason, then the following shall apply:
1. All orders and findings entered in connection with the Agreement shall
become null and void and have no further force and effect, shall not be used
or referred to for any purposes whatsoever, and shall not be admissible or
discoverable in any other proceeding;
2. The conditional certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to this Order
shall be vacated automatically and void; no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or
preclusion shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings in the
Action; and the Agreement and its existence shall be inadmissible to establish
any fact relevant to class certification or any alleged liability of the
Defendant for the matters alleged in the Action or for any other purpose;
3. Nothing contained in this Order is, or may be construed as, any admission or
concession by or against the Defendant or Plaintiffs on any point of fact or
law.
L. Stay/Bar Of Other Proceedings.
All proceedings in this Action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as
may be necessary to implement the terms of the settlement. Pending final determination of
whether the settlement should be approved, Plaintiffs, all persons in the Settlement Class and
persons purporting to act on their behalf are enjoined from commencing or prosecuting
(either directly, representatively or in any other capacity) against any of the Released Parties
any action, arbitration or proceeding in any court, arbitration forum or tribunal asserting any
of the Released Claims.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 7 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
M. Timeline.
The Final Hearing, is scheduled on ______________________, 2018 at ________ __.m.
in Courtroom ____ at the United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101.
DATED this ___ day of ___________, 2018.
______________________________________ Robert S. Lasnik U.S. District Court Judge
Presented by: BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
/s/ Duncan C. Turner___________
Duncan C. Turner, WSBA #20597 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566
ACTION DATE
Preliminary Approval Order Entered ________________________________
Initial Notice Mailing Date Within 21 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
Notice Deadline Within 45 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
Exclusion/Objection Deadline 30 days after Notice Deadline
Class Counsel’s Fee Motion Submitted
45 days after Notice Deadline
Final Approval Brief and Response to Objections
45 days after Notice Deadline
Final Approval Hearing / Noting Date Between 100-140 days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
Final Approval Order Entered At the Court’s discretion.
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES- 8 2:16-cv-00278-RSL
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER P L L C
1 9 9 2 9 B a l l i n g e r W a y N E , S u i t e 2 0 0
S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 5 5
T E L 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 5 6 6
F A X 2 0 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 6 8 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE
/s/Daniel R. Whitmore Daniel R. Whitmore, WSBA #24012 2626 15th Avenue West, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: (206) 329-8400 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES
/s/ Jeffrey A. James Jeffrey A. James, WSBA #18277 Darren A. Feider, WSBA #22430 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone: (425) 454-4233 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant
Case 2:16-cv-00278-RSL Document 32-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 8