Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions
Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions
Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Initially, there appeared to be a valid statutory basis for this approach. Specifically, <strong>Code</strong> of<br />
Civil Procedure Section 384(b) provides:<br />
[P]rior to the entry of any judgment in a class action . . . the court<br />
shall determine the total amount that will be payable to all class<br />
members [<strong>and</strong>] shall also set a date when the parties shall report<br />
to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class<br />
members. After the report is received, the court shall amend the<br />
judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid<br />
residue, plus interest . . . to nonprofit organizations or<br />
foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or<br />
similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent<br />
with the objectives <strong>and</strong> purposes of the underlying cause of<br />
action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations<br />
providing civil legal services to the indigent.<br />
Many trial courts interpreted this language as forbidding the return of any funds from a<br />
class settlement fund to the defendant. Instead, leftover funds either had to be distributed<br />
to other class members, donated to charity, or escheated to the state. 475<br />
This interpretation of Section 384 was rejected, however, in In Re Microsoft I-V Cases. 476<br />
The court in that case faced a settlement where a portion of unclaimed funds from a<br />
consumer class action would be returned to Microsoft. The court analyzed the statutory<br />
language <strong>and</strong> legislative history of Section 384 <strong>and</strong> determined that it applied only to funds<br />
an employer paid as a result of a judgment entered in favor of the class on the merits, <strong>and</strong><br />
not from a stipulated settlement of class claims. 477 Accordingly, In re Microsoft makes clear<br />
that there is no absolute prohibition under <strong>California</strong> law on parties agreeing to reversions<br />
in class settlements.<br />
Nonetheless, some trial courts have continued to exercise their general discretion to<br />
determine fairness as a basis to refuse to approve reversionary settlements. This tendency<br />
became more widespread following a determination in Kakani v. Oracle Corporation, 478 in<br />
475<br />
476<br />
477<br />
478<br />
<strong>and</strong> costs that is based on the value of the money paid out in claims rather than some fictional “gross settlement value”,<br />
<strong>and</strong> (3) payment of settlement administration costs. In this scenario, there is no money returned to the employer.<br />
Cy pres settlements should ensure that the class is benefited <strong>and</strong> the purposes of the underlying statutes sued upon<br />
are best served. Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (trial court abused its discretion in approving cy<br />
pres settlement because the proposed distribution did not address the objectives of the underlying statutes sued upon,<br />
did not target the nationwide plaintiff class, <strong>and</strong> did not provide a reasonable certainty that any member of the class<br />
would be benefited.)<br />
135 Cal. App. 4th 706 (2006).<br />
Id. at 722.<br />
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47515 (N.D. Cal. Jun 19, 2007).<br />
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com <strong>Litigating</strong> <strong>California</strong> <strong>Wage</strong> & <strong>Hour</strong> <strong>Class</strong> <strong>Actions</strong> (12th Edition) 105