You're viewing Docket Item 370 from the case . View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 6



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA



IN RE: RBC DAIN RAUSCHER
OVERTIME LITIGATION

Civil No. 06-3093 (JRT/FLN)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS AND

COLLECTIVE ACTION

SETTLEMENT






Peter Muhic, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLPC, 280
King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087; David Rosen, ROSE, KLEIN &
MARIAS LLP, 801 South Grand Avenue, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90071; John Halebian, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, 61
Broadway, Suite 501, New York, NY 10006, for plaintiffs.


Sari Alamuddin, MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP, 77 West Wacker
Drive, 5th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, for defendant.


On February 23, 2012, the Court heard the Joint Motion for Final Approval of

Class and Collective Action Settlement [Docket No. 356] by Plaintiffs Carlos Alvarez,

Ana Blumberg-Markus, Susan Capozzoli, Andres Cruz, Eugene David, Patrick Grattan,

Christopher Kennedy, Martin Kulman, Felipe Pazos, and Alberto Roque (collectively,

“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated, and Defendant RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC” or “Defendant”) (together

with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”). The Court has considered the Joint Stipulation and

Settlement Agreement (“Stipulation”) filed with the Court on August 16, 2011 [Docket

No. 348], all exhibits attached thereto, and the submissions and arguments of counsel,

and hereby finds and orders as follows:

CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 6

1.

Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used in this Order (the “Final

Approval Order”) will have the same meaning as defined in the Stipulation.

2.

3.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation.

The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement memorialized in the

Stipulation, and filed with the Court, were negotiated at arm’s-length and are finally

approved as fair, reasonable and adequate in light of the factual, legal, practical and

procedural considerations raised by this Litigation and orders that the Stipulation shall be

consummated and implemented in accordance with its terms and conditions.

4.

Solely for the purpose of Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation, the

Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable standards for certification

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and

hereby certifies a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a collective action 29 U.S.C. §

216(b), consisting of:

All Securities Brokers who worked for RBC in the United
States at any time between June 1, 2007 and July 1, 2010 and
the FLSA
includes
Settlement Class2.

the Collective Opt-In Class1 and

5.

The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiffs Carlos Alvarez,

Ana Blumberg-Markus, Susan Capozzoli, Andres Cruz, Eugene David, Patrick Grattan,


1
The Collective Opt-In Class includes all individuals who filed consent forms to
participate in the Litigation as of October 19, 2010, and who did not otherwise withdrawn
their consent forms, or submit an Election to Opt-Out of Settlement and Class Action
Form.
2
The FLSA Settlement Class includes all Class Members who did not previously
file a consent form with the Court to participate in the Litigation and who are not
members of the Collective Opt-In Class.



2

CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 6

Christopher Kennedy, Martin Kulman, Felipe Pazos, and Alberto Roque as Class

Representatives.

6.

The Court appoints, for Settlement purposes only, the law firms of Kessler

Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Rose, Klein & Marias, LLP, Thierman Law Firm, Lovell

Stewart Halebian LLP, Berman DeValerio, and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, as Class

Counsel.

7.

The Notices provided to Class Members as set forth in the Stipulation

were the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and

constituted due and sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement and the Fairness Hearing

to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement, in

full compliance with the notice requirements of FED R. CIV. P. 23, due process, the

Constitution of the United States, the laws of Minnesota and all other applicable laws.

The Notices were accurate, objective, informative and provided Class Members with all

of the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation

in the Settlement and its fairness.

8.

9.

No written objections to the settlement were received by the Court.

After due consideration of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success at trial, the range

of Plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the complexity, expense and duration of the Litigation,

and the state of proceedings at which the Settlement was achieved, the Court finds the

Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate. In particular, in light of the significant

possibility that Defendant could prevail on the merits based on one or more of the

claimed defenses, it is clear that the Settlement falls well-within the range of settlement



3

CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 4 of 6

terms that would be considered fair, reasonable and adequate.

10.

The Claims Administrator shall cause the Settlement Amount to be

disbursed in accordance with the Stipulation. Specifically, within twenty (20) calendar

days of the Effective Date, the Claims Administrator shall mail to each Participating

Claimant at his or her Last Known Address, or Updated Address if obtained, his or her

individual payment in accordance with the Stipulation.

11.

The Court shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction and rule by separate Order

with respect to all applications for awards of attorneys’ fees and Class Representative

Enhancement Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and reimbursements of expenses,

submitted pursuant to the Stipulation.

12. Upon the Effective Date and after Defendant has paid the entire Settlement

Amount, the Class Representatives and each Member of the Settlement Class, including,

but not limited to, all Participating Claimants, on behalf of themselves and each of their

heirs, representatives, successors, assigns, and attorneys, shall be deemed to have, and by

operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, dismissed with

prejudice, relinquished, and discharged all Released State Law Claims as defined in the

Stipulation.

13. Upon the Effective Date and after Defendant has paid the entire Settlement

Amount, the Class Representatives and each Participating Claimant, on behalf of

themselves and each of their heirs, representatives, successors, assigns, and attorneys,

shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and

forever released, dismissed with prejudice, relinquished, and discharged all Released



4

CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 5 of 6

Federal Law Claims as defined in the Stipulation.

14. Upon the Effective Date and after Defendant has paid the entire Settlement

Amount, the Class Representatives shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the

Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, dismissed with prejudice,

relinquished, and discharged all Class Representatives’ Released Claims as detailed in the

Class Representative General Releases, with separate releases provided for each Class

Representative’s State, as provided for in the Stipulation.

15.

In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, the Settlement and the

Stipulation shall be deemed null and void and shall have no effect whatsoever. In such

case, nothing in the Stipulation or this Order shall be relied upon, cited as, constitute

evidence of, or constitute an admission that class action certification is or may be

appropriate in this action or any other matter.

16.

This Final Order and Judgment shall not be construed or used as an

admission, concession, or declaration of any fault, wrongdoing, breach or liability of any

of the Parties.

17.

This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court hereby retains

jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, implementation, effectuation and

enforcement of the Stipulation. The Court further retains jurisdiction to enforce this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.





5

CASE 0:06-cv-03093-JRT-FLN Document 370 Filed 02/23/12 Page 6 of 6



____s/ John R. Tunheim ____

JOHN R. TUNHEIM

United States District Judge



DATED: February 23, 2012
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.









6