- Please see below for information about the following settlements, including information for class members.
Settlements Offered to Plaintiffs in First Student, Inc. Cases
Defendants First Student, Inc. and First Transit, Inc. (“First”) have made settlement offers to each of 557 remaining Plaintiffs in the background check lawsuits collectively called First Student, Inc. Cases (L.A. County Superior Court Case No. JCCP4624).
If you would like information about the proposed settlement, you can call (510) 225-9151. Plaintiffs who are entitled to participate in the proposed settlement can also find more information at www.firstbackgroundchecksettlement.com.
Plaintiffs who wish to accept their proposed settlement must do so by no later than April 8, 2023, so please contact us as soon as possible if you have questions or need assistance.
Todd Jackson and Genevieve Casey of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP represent the Plaintiffs in this matter, along with Hunter Pyle, Andrea A. Núñez and Katie Fiester of Hunter Pyle Law. To speak to one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, please call (510) 225-9151.
Jensen v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, et al (Case No. CGC-17557801)
On June 16, 2022, the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco granted final approval of a $1.85 million, non-reversionary class action settlement in Jensen v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California (“Blue Shield”). In this case, plaintiffs Lance Jensen and Nicholas Armstrong allege that Blue Shield misclassified certain of its IT employees as exempt employees and that, as a result, Blue Shield failed to pay overtime, failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to pay all wages owed at discharge, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and the Private Attorneys General Act.
The following Blue Shield employees may be eligible to receive a settlement award:
- All individuals who are or who have been directly employed by Blue Shield at any time from March 28, 2013 through October 12, 2021 in the following job codes: ITIV01P1, IT1044, ITIV02P1, and IT1136.
- All individuals who are or who have been directly employed by Blue Shield at any time from January 11, 2016 through October 12, 2021 in the following job codes: ITIV01P1, IT1044, ITIV02P1, IT1136, IT1122, ITIE01P3, IT1045, ITIV01P2, IT1046, ITIV01P3, IT1137, ITIV02P2, IT1138, ITIV02P3, IT1043, ITSY01P2, ITSY01P3, IT1003, BDBS02P2, IT1004, and BDBS02P3.
For more information, or to provide updated contact information, please contact Class Counsel: Todd Jackson, Genevieve Casey, or Andrea Obando.
Below are the links to key court filings related to the settlement agreement:
- Settlement Agreement
- First Addendum to Settlement Agreement
- Second Addendum to Settlement Agreement
- Approved Class Notice
- Preliminary Approval Filings
- Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Amended Order Continuing Hearing and Authorizing a Supplemental Filing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- First Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Order After December 9, 2021 Hearing and Authorizing a Supplemental Filing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Second Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Order Continuing Hearing and Authorizing a Supplemental Filing re Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Declaration of Genevieve Casey in Support of Third Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Provisionally Certifying Settlement Class & Preliminarily Approving Class and PAGA Settlement
- Order Granting Final Approval
- Judgment
Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc. (Case No. 4:17-cv-03026)
On September 3, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of a $5.4 million, non-reversionary class action settlement in Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al. In this case, plaintiffs Marley Castro and Lucia Marmolejo alleged that their employer, ABM, failed to reimburse them and other janitorial workers called “Cleaners” in California for work-related use of their personal cell phones in violation of California Labor Code § 2802, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Workers classified as cleaners who were employed by ABM between October 24, 2010 and February 12, 2019 may be eligible to receive a settlement award. For more information, or to provide updated contact information, please contact Catha Worthman, Genevieve Casey or view the Settlement Administrator’s website about the case here.
Below are the links to key court filing related to the settlement agreement:
Pfeifer, et al. v. Wawa, Inc., et al.
On April 19, 2018, Plaintiffs Greg Pfeifer and Andrew Dorley filed a revised motion seeking preliminary approval of a $25 million settlement in Pfeifer, et al. v. Wawa, Inc., et al., a class action alleging that Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selling the Wawa stock in ESOP accounts of former Wawa employees in September 2015. For more information, or to provide updated contact information, please contact Dan Feinberg or co-counsel, R. Joseph Barton.
Below, please find links to key documents related to the settlement:
- Plaintiffs; Unopposed Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification
- Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Unopposed Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification
- Declaration of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification
- Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Plainitffs’ Memorandum in Support of Unopposed Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Declaration of Daniel Feinberg in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
- [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification
- Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification; Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Notice of Class Action Settlement
- Election Form
- Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards
- Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards
- Declaration of Daniel Feinberg in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards
- Exhibit 1
- Exhibit 2
- Declaration of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
- Declaration of Richard E. Donahoo in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Award
- Declaration of Karen I. Handorf in Support of Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
- [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards
- Objection of Class Member Brad C. Wall
- Supplemental Declaration of Daniel Feinberg Regarding Updated Litigation Expenses in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Class Representative Service Awards
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Declaration of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
- Exhibit A
- [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards
- Order that the Hearing on Final Approval and Fairness of The Settlement scheduled for 8/9/2018 at 10:00 is rescheduled to 8/9/2018 at 11:30 A.M. Eastern Time
- Summary of Settlement Hearing
- The Final approval hearing was held on August 9, 2018. Two class members attended to oppose the settlement – one who had filed a timely written objection and one who did not. Both objectors spoke about the settlement. Those were the only two objections out of 1,264 ESOP participant class members. Both objections claim that the settlement is too small and they believe that the losses are greater than what Plaintiffs’ experts calculated. At the hearing, Class Counsel explained why the calculations are not a legally viable method of calculating losses in this case and why there were significant risks to the case justifying a settlement that was between 25% and 50% of the maximum losses as calculated by Plaintiffs’ experts (depending on which measure of losses the Court were to adopt). The Court has not yet ruled on the motion for final approval or the objections.
- On August 31, 2018, the Court granted final approval to the class action settlement, granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs and class representative service awards, and entered final judgment. The Court’s August 31 Order and Judgment are below.
Lindell v. Synthes USA, et al.
On January 9, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval of a $5 million, non-reversionary settlement in Lindell v. Synthes USA, et al., a class action alleging that Defendants failed to compensate certain California-based commission-only sales consultants for expenses and took unlawful deductions from pay for sales consultants, both commission-only and salaried, in California.
The two classes—one for expenses, one for deductions—had previously been certified in 2014, but the class definitions have been amended to include an end date of July 14, 2016. Sales consultants who worked for Synthes in California between December 13, 2007 and July 14, 2016 may be eligible for a distribution under the settlement. For more information, or to provide updated contact information, please contact Darin Ranahan or Catha Worthman.
Below, please find links to key court filings related to the settlement agreement:
- First Amended Complaint
- Settlement Agreement
- Findings and Recommendations Granting Preliminary Approval (with Approved Class Notice)
- Order Granting Preliminary Approval
- Findings & Recommendations Granting Final Approval
- Order Granting Final Approval
Rogers, et al. v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al.
On October 7, 2016, the Alameda County Superior Court granted final approval of a $2.465 million settlement in Rogers, et al. v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., a class action alleging that Defendants failed to pay Personal Care Attendants the required minimum and straight time wages and overtime premiums, did not provide them with required meal and rest breaks when they worked in licensed healthcare facilities, and failed to issue legally compliant paystubs.
The class includes Personal Care Attendants who worked for Defendants Kindred Healthcare, Inc., Professional Healthcare at Home, LLC or NP Plus, LLC in California between June 18, 2010 and April 1, 2016. The Court’s Order and Judgment of Final Approval, including the schedule for implementation of the settlement, is linked below. For more information, contact Catha Worthman or Genevieve Casey. Court filings can be found at the Court’s website, DomainWeb, at https://publicrecords.alameda.courts.ca.gov/PRS (to locate the case, choose Search by Case Number and enter RG14729507).