Icard v. Ecolab

What is the latest update?

Last updated: September 1, 2016 at 18:47 pm

On August 31, 2016, the Court granted Final Approval of the settlement. If you have any questions about the settlement, please contact us immediately at (805) 303-8115.

On May 13, 2016, the Court granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement reached between the parties. If you are a class member who has not received notice of the settlement in the mail, please contact us immediately at (805) 303-8115.

Class members are persons who meet this definition: All Ecolab Route Managers, Route Sales Managers, and PureForce division Sales Service Route Managers who worked in California between December 21, 2005 and May 25, 2012. If you worked in one of these positions but began after May 25, 2012, you may not be part of the class and should call us at (805) 303-8115 for more information.

Prior Updates:

The parties have reached a potential resolution of the action, subject to court approval. Class members will likely be receiving notice of the settlement by mail in the coming months. The approval process is slow. Generally, the first step is that the court must grant “preliminary” approval of the settlement. After that, the class members are sent notice of the settlement and given the chance to make a claim (or opt out of or object to the settlement). Once the class gets notice, the court must grant “final” approval of the settlement, after which settlement proceeds are sent to class members who make a claim. The process described in this paragraph is how the approval of a class action settlement generally works. The parties to this case have not yet hashed out all of the details of the settlement, so the procedures may differ slightly. Please be patient, as the procedure could take several months (perhaps between 6 and 12 months). In the meantime, you can direct your questions to Strauss & Strauss, APC or the Hathaway Law Firm. Also, if you have moved, please *CALL US at (805) 303-8115* with your new contact information.

Previously, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and Ecolab filed a motion to decertify the class. The court ruled on the motions on September 28, 2015, granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and denying Ecolab’s motions for summary judgment and for decertification of the class action. THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE VICTORY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER ROUTE SALES MANAGERS IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE ECOLAB’S MAIN DEFENSES HAVE BEEN KNOCKED OUT AND THE CASE WILL CONTINUE AS A CLASS ACTION. The decision is below:

• View PDF

What is the case about?

On December 21, 2009, plaintiff James Icard filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, entitled James Icard v. Ecolab, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, designated as Case No. CGC-09-495344. The case seeks unpaid overtime for Route Managers and/or Route Sales Managers who have worked in California, do not cross state lines in the performance of their duties, and have not received full and correct pay for all hours worked and have not received accurate paycheck stubs. ON MAY 25, 2012, THE COURT CERTIFIED THE CASE AS A CLASS ACTION.

The parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on August 8, 2014; the case did not resolve.

Below are some questions concerning this case. If you have additional questions or comments, please use the comments form at the bottom of the page. We review all comments before publishing them to the website.

What is the status of the case?

On December 29, 2009, Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint.

On January 28, 2010, Defendant, through its counsel, removed this action to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332 and 1441.

On February 2, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss the matter.

On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On June 18, 2010, the federal court remanded the case back to state court.

On June 30, 2011, Defendant once again removed this action to the United States District Court, Northern District of California.