Gallion v. Apple, Inc
Letter from Dina Micheletti to Judge Seeborg. (Fazio, Jeffrey) (Filed on 3/21/2011)
Gallion v. Apple, Inc
March 21, 2011 BY CM/ECF The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Court Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Gallion v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-cv-1610 Corsi v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-cv-3316 Calix v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-cv-5895
Dear Judge Seeborg: My office represents Plaintiff Charlene Gallion and we have been appointed to serve as interim co-lead class counsel in the above-titled cases, together with Steven Schwartz, counsel for Plaintiff Christopher Corsi. I am writing in the hope the Court can help solve a problem that affects the case management conference ("CMC") that is scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011. During the previous CMC, Your Honor advised the parties to be prepared to discuss a schedule for a number of key aspects of the litigation, including the motion for class certification, during the March 24 CMC. Given the importance of that discussion, we believe it is imperative that both colead class counsel participate in the CMC. After the March 24 CMC was scheduled, the defendants in an unrelated case announced that the corporate designee whose deposition we had been seeking for several months and whose availability is limited would be available for deposition in Los Angeles on March 24 and 25. Because discovery in that case has proven to be inordinately difficult (so much so that the depositions are scheduled to be conducted in the jury room), my partner, Jeffrey Fazio, and I agreed to travel to Los Angeles to conduct the depositions on those dates, believing that we would be able to appear at the March 24 CMC by telephone.
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 | San Ramon, California 94583 T: 925.543.2555 F: 925.369.0344 www.fazmiclaw.com
Volvo to argue that he was not eligible for the extended-warranty coverage under the Trew
settlement. Given that one thing had nothing to do with the other, I contacted Volvo's counsel
and was able to help this settlement class member receive the warranty coverage to which he was
Hon. Richard Seeborg -- entitled (and effectuated a change in extended March 21, 2011 -- Page 2potentially benefits other warranty procedures that
Trew settlement class members). On Friday, March 18, I contacted Your Honor's Courtroom to request permission to appear by telephone firm's March 24 CMC. During that call, I 72. I raise these issues here to illustrate that my at the involvement in cases does not was advised that Your Honor's policy is to permit telephone appearances only cease with the entry of final judgment. Rather,also duties as Class Counsel require us to remainthe if all other counsel were our appearing by telephone. Accordingly, Court's staff suggested that we arrange for all counsel to appear at the March available to resolve disputes and assist Settlement Class members until all valid claims are paid 24 CMC by telephone or, alternatively, reschedule the CMC to take place on a subsequent Thursday in involved with those efforts is not, of course, and any extended warranties expire. The time March or April.
reflected in our time records because it has not yet been parties are willing to appear by telephone or While counsel for all the incurred. reschedule the CMC, Mr. Schwartz has made non-refundable plans to travel 73. Our motion for fees and expenses also does not include the time and (aside from from Pennsylvania to appear at the March 24 CMC. After explaining the prepaid airfare) the situation to the Court's staff,Los Angeleswas the final fairness hearing, or from costs we will spend traveling to my office for advised to seek guidance Your Honor by letter or motion. Thus, I am writing to respectfully request he time we will spend preparing for consider permitting me or Mr. Fazio, along with counsel for that the Court and participating in that hearing. Plaintiff Calix, to appear at the March 24 CMC by telephone and Mr. 74. Finally, although we do not anticipate objections to the Settlement Agreement, if Schwartz and counsel for Apple to appear in person. a so-called "professional" objector decides to intervene for the purpose of trying to extort a cash If it is not possible to make such an exception in this case, we payment from Class Counsel or Toyota in exchange for refraining from delaying to allow all counsel to respectfully request that Your Honor either (a) agree final resolution appear by telephone on March 24 (in which case Mr. Schwartz will forgo his by way of motions travel plans) or often the case in class actions), wecounsel appear in person, to and appeal (as is (b) if Your Honor prefers that will have to respond to continue the CMC to Thursday March 31, of time and earliest such motions and appeals, which can consume an enormous amount or the nextresources. available date.
I declare under penalty of perjury Your Honor's consideration ofCalifornia that the We appreciate under the laws of the State of this request, and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused the Court. foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed at San Ramon, California,
Very truly yours,
on May 28, 2010.
Dina E. Micheletti Dina E. Micheletti cc (by e-mail): · Penny Preovolos · Andrew Muhlbach · Kim Kralowec · Earl L. Bohachek · Steven Schwartz · Rose Luzon · Scott Brady -17DECLARATION OF DINA E.· ICHELETTI Jones M Chris IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
& FOR ATTORNEY FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARD
CASE NO. BC375017