Mora v. Cal West Ag Services, Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER APPROVING Proposed Revised Notice Process signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/10/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARMELA MORA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 11 12 Case No. 1:15-cv-1490 LJO EPG ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED REVISED NOTICE PROCESS Plaintiffs, 13 (ECF No. 91) vs. 14 15 CAL WEST AG SERVICES, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 On January 8, 2019, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a Minute Order (ECF 18 19 No. 90) notifying the parties that, based on a review of Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class 20 action, it appeared that the parties had failed to comply with the court’s order granting preliminary 21 approval (the “Order”) (ECF Nos. 80, 84). Among other things, the parties issued a defective class 22 notice (“Notice”) to the class members that did not incorporate the changes the parties had been 23 ordered to make. (Compare ECF No. 88-8 (the Notice that was provided to the class members) with 24 ECF No. 84 (order setting out required changes to the Notice).) The magistrate judge noted that, 25 based on the defects in the Notice, she planned to vacate the final fairness hearing, set for Friday, 26 January 11, 2018, and provided the parties with an opportunity to respond. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiffs and the Marthedal Defendants (the “parties”)1 have filed a Joint Statement and 27 28 1 Defendant Cal West Ag Services, Inc., is not a party to the settlement agreement, and thus is not discussed in this order. 1 1 Proposal Regarding Revised Notice (ECF No. 91) in response to the magistrate judge’s minute 2 order. The Joint Statement acknowledges the failure to revise the Notice as required by the Order. 3 The parties propose to send class members a Letter of Supplemental Notice that includes the 4 information that was required to be included in the Notice but was not, and provide the class 5 members with an additional forty-five (45) days within which to raise objections to the settlement. 6 A copy of the proposed Letter of Supplemental Notice is attached to the Joint Statement as exhibit 7 B. (ECF No. 91-2.) The Court finds the proposed Letter of Supplemental Notice to be appropriate 8 for remedying the defects in the Notice and approves the Letter of Supplemental Notice and the 9 revised notice process proposed by the parties. 10 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 11 1. The proposed Letter of Supplemental Notice (ECF No. 91-2 at 2) and the revised notice 12 13 process proposed by the parties (ECF No. 91) are approved. 2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, the parties shall cause the Settlement 14 15 Administrator to send to all class members the Letter of Supplemental Notice. 3. Class members shall have forty-five (45) days from the date the letter is mailed to file 16 written objections to the settlement. 17 4. Class members may also raise objections at the final fairness hearing, to be set by the 18 Court, but the Court retains discretion to decline to consider any objection that has not 19 been timely submitted in writing. 20 5. The parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Michelle Rooney 21 (mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov) to arrange a date to reset the final fairness hearing. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?