Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

have any great impact on class settlement. If the trend toward greater judicial scrutiny of
settlements continues unreasonably, however, it could discourage class settlements
because employers will lack confidence that the settlements they negotiate will ultimately
be approved.
D. Class Notice
Courts have also exercised greater scrutiny of the notice that is sent to the class. The law
requires that the class receive notice using the best “practicable” method. 488 Courts have
been increasingly concerned that recipients of the class notice understand the nature of the
claim, can calculate the value of their share of the settlement, and can readily access court
documents to investigate the nature of the case.
The judges in the Alameda Complex Division have requiried that the parties make
exhaustive efforts to notify class members of the claims and have sufficient information to
exercise their options under the settlement. For example, in addition to requiring that the
administrator send a reminder postcard to class members who have not made claims, the
judges in Alameda have ordered that the administrator make at least three telephone calls
to class members.
E. Objection to Settlements
When a class settlement is slated for final approval, often the last hurdle the settling parties
must surmount any objection to the settlement. Any member of the settlement class who
does not opt out of the settlement may assert an objection to the settlement. 489 Courts tend
to be extremely reluctant to sustain objections where the sole basis is that the objector
believes the settlement is not generous enough. After all, if an individual believes his wage
and hour claim is worth more than the class is receiving, then he can opt out of the
settlement and assert his own claim (and typically can recover attorney’s fees if he
prevails).
In 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp., 490 the court explained that in
evaluating an objection that a settlement was too low given the merits of the case, a court
must not substitute its own opinion on the merits for those of the settling parties:
“the merits of the underlying class claims are not a basis for upsetting the
settlement of a class action; the operative word is ‘settlement.’ Instead the
488
489
490
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1527, 1539 (2005) (notice “must be the best practicable,
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”).
Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 235 (2001).
85 Cal. App. 4th 1135 (2000).
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 109