OLIVER WANGER, District Judge
On March 7, 2011, this Court considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the parties' Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release Between Plaintiffs and Defendant (herein, "Stipulation of Settlement"), Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Your Rights, And Options for You to Consider, Claim Form and Request for Exclusion from Class Action Settlement form, and the documents submitted in support of that Motion. Orshansky Yeremian LLP appeared as "Class Counsel" for and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the class. Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick Pearson LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant Cargill Meat Solutions, Inc. ("Defendant").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The proposed class defined as follows satisfies the requirements of a settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All persons who are or were employed by Defendant at the Fresno Grind Facility in California as nonexempt hourly employees at any time between August 1, 2008 and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement ("Class Members").
2. Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq., and David H. Yeremian, Esq., of Orshansky Yeremian, LLP, are appointed Class Counsel;
3. The named plaintiffs, Tyrus Collins and James Greer, are appointed Class Representatives;
4. Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed Claims Administrator;
5. The class-action settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement appears to be proper: it falls within the range of reasonableness; it is the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations; and it treats all Class Members fairly. Consequently it is presumptively valid subject only to whatever objections should be raised at the final approval hearing;
6. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Claim Form and Request for Exclusion from Class Action Settlement form (collectively "Notice Packet");
7. The Court directs the mailing, by first-class mail, of the Notice Packet to Class Members in accordance with the schedule set forth below. The Court finds that the selection of dates for the mailing of the Notice Packet meets the requirements of due process, provides the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice; and,
5. The following dates shall govern for the purposes of this settlement:
Timing Event March 17, 2011 (10 calendar days Defendant provides Claims Administrator after preliminary approval of mailing addresses for Class Members. settlement) March 25, 2011 (within 20 calendar Claims Administrator mails Notice Packet days after preliminary approval of to Class Members. settlement) May 9, 2011 (45 calendar days after Deadline for Class Members to submit Claims Administrator mails Notice Claim Form, Exclusion Form, or Packet to Class Members) objections. May 30, 2011 (28 calendar days Plaintiffs file Motion for Final Approval of before final approval hearing) Class Action Settlement. June 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Final Approval Hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2011