Staci Chester et al v. The TJX Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 111

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT #109 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court is inclined to preliminarily approve the parties proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 109-3), if the proposed notice was amended to conform to the format addressed in this Order. For these reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Court directs the parties to submit a new Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, should they wish to do so, no later than November 13, 2017. (lc). Modified on 10/20/2017 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

STACI CHESTER; DANIEL

12

FRIEDMAN; ROBIN BERKOFF; and

13

THERESA METOYER, individually and

14

o/b/o those similarly situated,

15

Case № 5:15-cv-01437-ODW (DTB)

Plaintiffs,

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT [109]

v.

17

THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; TJ MAXX

18

OF CA, LLC; MARSHALLS OF CA,

19

LLC; HOMEGOODS, INC; and DOES 1–

20

100, inclusive,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Staci Chester, Daniel Friedman, Robin Berkoff
and Theresa Metoyer’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class. (Mot., ECF No. 109.) Defendants
The TJX Companies, Inc., T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, Marshalls of CA, LLC, and
HomeGoods, Inc. (collectively, “TJX” or “Defendants”) do not oppose Plaintiffs’
Motion.

Having considered Plaintiffs’ arguments in their moving papers, the

1

accompanying declarations, and settlement agreement, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’

2

Motion without prejudice.

3

In approving a proposed class action settlement, “[u]ltimately, the district

4

court’s determination is nothing more than an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross

5

approximations, and rough justice.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,

6

221 F.R.D. 523, 525–26 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks

7

omitted). Thus, “[t]he initial decision to approve or reject a settlement proposal is

8

committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id. The Court takes issue with

9

the form of the parties’ proposed notice to be sent out to potential class members.

10

(See Settlement Agreement Exs. 3, 4, 5, 7, ECF No. 109-3.)

11

It is the duty of the district court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all

12

class members who would be bound by the [proposed settlement].” Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

23(e)(1). The Court finds that any notice of settlement distributed in this case should

14

display the logos of Defendants, in color, to alert potential class members to the

15

contents of the notice and the parties involved in this litigation.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

2

1

The Court is inclined to preliminarily approve the parties’ proposed Settlement

2

Agreement (ECF No. 109-3), if the proposed notice was amended to conform to the

3

format addressed in this Order. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED

4

without prejudice. (ECF No. 109.) The Court directs the parties to submit a new

5

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, should they wish to do

6

so, no later than November 13, 2017.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

October 20, 2017

9
10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3