Maryam Burcham v. Welch Foods, Inc.

Filing 88

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court DENIES Plaintiff Seann Courtney's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in the Courtney action. No hearing is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. (jp)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 09-5946 AHM (AGRx)*
SA CV 10-1427 AHM (AGRx)

Title

MARYAM BURCHAM v. WELCH FOODS, INC. consolidated with SA
SEANN P. COURTNEY v. WELCH FOODS, INC., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 4, 2011

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Seann Courtney’s Motion for Leave to File a First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the Courtney action.1
On February 3, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the
Courtney action with the Burcham action and to appoint Weiss & Lurie as lead counsel.
Dkt. 75. The stipulation was signed by all of the parties, including Harold M. Hewell,
counsel for Ms. Courtney who filed this Motion for Leave to File a FAC. Dkt. 73. The
consolidation order rendered the Burcham complaint the operative complaint. Dkt. 75, at
¶ 2.
On March 7, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ Motion for Settlement
Approval, Dkt. 78, and granted, for reasons stated on the record, the Parties’ Motion for
Preliminary Approval. Dkt. 85. The Court ordered the parties to promptly submit a
revised proposed order, final claim form, text of the proposed advertisements, the text of
the proposed website, the final stipulation of settlement, and the final notice to the class.
Dkt. 85. The parties submitted the documents, and on March 14, 2011, the Court signed
the Order Preliminarily Approving the Class Action Settlement, Conditionally Certifying
the Settlement Class, and Providing for a Notice and Scheduling Order. Dkt. 87.
Plaintiff Burcham opposes this Motion, as does Defendant Welch. Dkt. 29, 31.
Plaintiff Burcham notes that she and her counsel (Weiss & Lurie, lead counsel) “do not
1

Dkt. 28 in CV 10-1427 AHM (AGRx).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 09-5946 AHM (AGRx)*
SA CV 10-1427 AHM (AGRx)

Date

May 4, 2011

Title

MARYAM BURCHAM v. WELCH FOODS, INC. consolidated with SA
SEANN P. COURTNEY v. WELCH FOODS, INC., et al.

consent to the filing of Courtney’s Motion or to the filing of a proposed amended
complaint.” Opp., at 1.
In her motion, Courtney states she has already notified Plaintiff Burcham’s counsel
that she objects to the settlement claims. Mot. at 2. She states she is filing this motion
“in order to avoid undue delay should the class action settlement now pending before this
Court not achieve final approval for any reason.” Mot. at 3-4. In this statement, she
underscores the procedural impropriety of this motion. Courtney joined the Motion to
Consolidate, and is now estopped from backing out of that concerted decision.
Moreover, Courtney is seeking to amend a complaint that is not the operative complaint.
Finally, Courtney has the opportunity to opt out of the settlement or to file objections to
it, as she claims to have done, if she so desires. The Court accordingly DENIES
Courtney’s Motion.2
No hearing is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

:
Initials of Preparer

SMO

2

Dkt. 28 in CV 10-1427 AHM (AGRx).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2