2012-00125488-CU-OE

Jozette Lemmons vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

Filed By: Blumenthal, Norman B.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.
C.C.P., sec. 382, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the
Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at
Counsel for moving party is
ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be
available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party
appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff class counsel requests that the Court (1) grant preliminary approval of the
proposed Settlement of this action, (2) approve the form and method for providing
class-wide notice, (3) direct that notice of the proposed settlement be given to the
class (4) schedule a hearing on final approval of class action settlement, entry of
Judgment and plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses.

The complaint in Jozette Lemmons v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals was filed on June
6, 2012, as a wage and hour class action, alleging failure to pay Northern California
Site Support Specialists for the time they spent “on call” or “stand by” when not
actually performing work. The complaint also asserted derivative claims for unfair
competition and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. First and
Second Amended Complaints added a Private Attorneys General Act cause of action.

For purposes of this settlement, the Court is asked to conditionally certify the Class defined as: “All current and former Northern California-based employees having the
job title of ‘Site Support Specialist’ employed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals at any
time between December 7,2008 and the earlier of the date of preliminary approval or
January 1, 2014.” C.C.P., sec. 382.

The Court finds that settlement class satisfies the requirements of numerousity,
commonality and typicality. They are adequately represented by Plaintiff Jozette
Lemmons, and class counsel Bluemental, Norderehaug & Bhowmik. Common
questions of fact and law predominate over individual questions in this action for
purposes of settlement. The superiority requirement for class certification is also
satisfied.

The parties have engaged in discovery, including the plaintiff’s deposition, and
document productions, inspections and analysis.

The settlement is the result of a mediation conducted on Sept. 9, 2013, and
negotiations continuing thereafter.

In reviewing a request for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, the Court’s
task is to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the “range of
reasonableness” that would warrant sending out a notice of the settlement and giving
the class members the opportunity to object. (Newberg on Class Actions, 3d Ed.
(1992) § 11.25) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the
relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses,
complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action
status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery
completed and the stage of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel.
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794,1801.

The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement and notice provisions.

The final settlement approval date shall be scheduled for Friday, June 13, 2014, or
such later date as is necessary for the administrator and counsel.

The Court will sign the formal order submitted.