Pokorny et al v. Quixtar Inc et al

Filing 232

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 228 Motion for Approval of Reminder Notice. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

JEFF POKORNY, LARRY BLENN, and
KENNETH BUSIERE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13

QUIXTAR INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

) Case No. 07-0201-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
) APPROVAL OF REMINDER NOTICE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This Order assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural

17

posture of this putative class action, which has been preliminarily

18

approved for settlement.

19

Larry Blenn, and Kenneth Busiere ("Plaintiffs") seek the Court's

20

leave to send, via email, a notice that reminds class members that

21

their deadline to file claims is approaching.

22

("Reminder Mot."); 228-1 ("Reminder Email").

23

set this matter for hearing on August 31, 2012.

24

1.

25

and received leave for an expedited hearing, which is scheduled for

26

July 27, 2012.

27
28

ECF No. 216.

Plaintiffs Jeff Pokorny,

ECF Nos. 228
The Court previously
Reminder Mot. at

Because the deadline is August 17, id. at 2, Plaintiffs sought

ECF No. 230.

On July 20, Defendants filed a response to the Reminder Motion
in which they declined to oppose the motion and "defer[red] to the

ECF No. 231 at 2.

3

acknowledges Defendant's statement that 98 percent of class members

4

have already been contacted either through email or postcard, id.,

5

but the Court is also cognizant that this contact occurred in mid-

6

April, nearly four months before the deadline, Reminder Mot. at 1.

7

Common sense suggests that a reminder notice received weeks before

8

the deadline will spur potential claimants to exercise their rights

9

United States District Court

Court's judgment as to whether a reminder notice is appropriate."

2

For the Northern District of California

1

under the settlement more effectively than a notice delivered

The Court determines that it is.

The Court

10

months beforehand.

11

appropriate in light of the proportionally minimal expense

12

involved.

13

reminder emails will cost $22,000.

14

is de minimis in the context of an eight-figure settlement such as

15

this.

16

Furthermore, a reminder is particularly

The class administrator estimates that sending the
Reminder Mot. at 2.

This sum

Because the Reminder Motion is unopposed, the Court, having

17

reviewed the papers and for good cause shown, GRANTS the Reminder

18

Motion.

The hearing set for July 27, 2012, is VACATED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

July 20, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2