Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stefaniak v. HSBC Bank USA

January 31, 2008

JAMES STEFANIAK, KEITH J. PANACCIONE, AND CAROL YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA) DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

This Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and the memoranda of the parties in support thereof. (Docket Nos. 69, 70, 73, 75.) For the reasons set forth in the motion and memoranda, and upon the good cause shown, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (Docket No. 69) is GRANTED.

2. For purposes of settlement only, the Class is hereby conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as follows:

Approximately 1,218 individuals who, between July 17, 1999, and June 15, 2007, were employed in New Yorkby HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) as telephone customer service employees, including those who were employed by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Customer Service Specialists, Senior Customer Service Specialists, Telephone Banking Representatives, Remote Banking Service Specialists, and Senior Remote Banking Specialists, and by HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) as Customer Service Specialists, Senior Customer Service Specialists, Telephone Banking Representatives, and Senior Telephone Banking Representatives.

Excluded from the Class are any individuals who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class pursuant to the Notice disseminated in accordance with this Order.

3. The Court provisionally, and for the purposes of this settlement only, finds that:

(a) the Class Members consist of approximately 1,218 individuals employed by Defendants in the State of New York, and the requirement of numerosity is satisfied;

(b) the litigation and proposed settlement raise questions of law and fact common to the Class (including whether the Class Members were entitled to compensation for their preparatory and end of day tasks in accordance with applicable overtime laws), and these common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members;

(c) the claims of James Stefaniak and Keith Panaccione, formerly employed by Defendants (the "Class Representatives"), are typical of the claims of the Class;

(d) in assisting with the litigation and negotiating and entering into the proposed settlement, the Class Representatives and their counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Class, and will adequately represent the Class in connection with the proposed settlement; and

(e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

4. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the Court appoints the Class Representatives and their counsel of record Outten & Golden LLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP to act on behalf of the Class in connection with the proposed settlement.

5. The proposed schedule of deadlines set forth in the section entitled "Settlement Process" in the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.