Joan Harp et al v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. et al
| William Brockman, Joan Harp, Maynard Jackson, III and Andres Reyes |
| Does, EHM Productions, Inc., Fred Sapir, Vahid Sapir, Starline Sightseeing Tours, Inc., Starline Tours USA, Inc., Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. and TMZ Productions, Inc. |
| 2:2014cv07704 |
| October 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
214
JUDGMENT : 1) FINALLY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND COST AWARD; AND (3) GRANTING PREMIUMS TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES; (4) ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants STARLINE TOURS OF HO LLYWOOD, INC., STARLINE SIGHTSEEING TOURS, INC., STARLINE TOURS USA, INC., VAHID SAPIR, FARID SAPIR shall pay a maximum of $200,000 (the Gross Settlement Amount) pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The following amounts shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount: Settlement Administration Costs, $7,000.00 ; Class Counsels Fees and Costs, in the amount of $70,000.00 in fees and $17,000.00 in costs (including reimbursements to Plaintiff Deponents for travel costs and pa rking);Premiums in the amount of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff William Brockman and $10,000.00 to Plaintiff Andres Reyes for a total of $20,000.00;Payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $5,000.00 to be alloc ated as follows: $3,750.00 to the LWDA; and $1,250.00 to the Participating Settlement Class Members in satisfaction of any civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(i); andDefendants portion of state and federal employment taxes, including FICA,FUTA, Medicare, and California SDI. After above items are deducted from the Gross Settlement Amount, the remaining funds (Net Settlement Amount) shall be distributed pro rata to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR OTHER SPECIFICS). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
125
MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (dkt. 66, filed June 8, 2015) Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification o f the following class and subclass: Starline Driver Class: All current and former hourly drivers who, within three years preceding the date of their decision to opt in to this action, were employed by the Starline defendants in the State of Californi a. Starline and FHM Driver Subclass; All current and former hourly drivers who, within three years preceding the date of their decision to opt in to this action, were employed by both the Starline defendants and EHM in the State of California. The Further Scheduling Conference is continued to August 24, 2015 at 11:090 a.m. A Updated Joint Report shall be filed on or before August 17, 2015, if needed. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (bp)
|
|
Filing
64
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS (dkt. 57, filed April 26, 2015) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Because plaintiffs have not established that reconsideration of the Court's November 25, 2014 order denying plaintiffs' motion for remand is proper under Local Rule 7-18, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion-or, more accurately, plaintiffs' proposed order-accordingly. (bp)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
