Pokorny et al v. Quixtar Inc et al
Filing
348
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti adopting Report and Recommendations 345 , overruling objection 346 , and denying Sean Felder's request for additional compensation. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
JEFF POKORNY, LARRY BLENN, and
KENNETH BUSIERE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly
situated,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
QUIXTAR, INC., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
) Case No. 07-0201 SC
)
) ORDER RE: ALLENS' OBJECTION TO
) HARDSHIP AWARDS AND SEAN FELDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15
16
I.
17
INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is an objection by David R. Allen and
18
Connie M. Allen ("the Allens") to the Special Master's report and
19
recommendation denying their special hardship claim.
20
("R&R").
21
Felder, never filed on this case's docket, indicating his
22
displeasure with his award of $1,000 and requesting various other
23
relief.
24
Allen's objection and DENIES Felder's requests.
ECF No. 345
The Court has also received a letter from Claimant Sean
For the reasons discussed below the Court OVERRULES the
25
26
27
28
II.
BACKGROUND
The settlement agreement in this case provided for a special
hardship fund from which former Quixtar Independent Business Owners
1
("IBOs") who are covered by the settlement could receive a cash
2
payment of up to 20 percent of their losses, for a maximum of
3
$10,000, minus any repayments for Business Support Materials
4
("BSM"), which were awarded under a separate section of the
5
agreement.
6
relevant period for losses covered by this settlement began on
7
January 1, 2003.
8
show that their recruitment into and operation of their Quixtar
9
business (i) caused them to file for personal bankruptcy or (ii)
ECF No. 162-2 ("Settlement Agreement") § 6.1.2.
The
Successful hardship claimants were required to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
caused a loss of at least $10,000 from operating their Quixtar
11
business.
12
Id.
Per the Settlement Agreement, all hardship claims were to be
13
adjudicated by the Special Master.
14
"Schedule C or other schedule from a federal tax return, schedules
15
filed in connection with a bankruptcy filing, or comparably
16
reliable documentation acceptable to the Special Master."
17
6.1.2(c).
18
Losses had to be proven by a
Id. §
The Court has previously ruled on several objections to
19
hardship claims.
See, e.g., ECF No. 334 ("Apr. 1 Order").
20
Recently, the Court received an objection to a report and
21
recommendation from the Special Master recommending the rejection
22
of the Allen's special hardship claim.
23
Special Master noted the Allen's claims fall outside the claims
24
period.
25
Now the Allens object.
ECF No. 345 (R&R").
As a result, he recommended denial of the Allens' claims.
26
27
28
As the
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court reviews the Special Master's report and
2
1
recommendation de novo.
2
3
IV.
DISCUSSION
4
A.
The Allens
5
As discussed above, the Settlement Agreement here covers
6
losses beginning on January 1, 2003.
However, the Allens submitted
7
Schedule Cs for 1997-2000.
8
submissions predate the class period, but nevertheless request
9
consideration of their business losses because they "were [led] on
The Allens recognize that their
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
[by] senior officials that should be held accountable."
11
346 Ex. B ("Obj.").
12
ECF No.
While the Court is not unsympathetic to the Allens,
13
unfortunately their claims fall outside the class period.
As a
14
result there is no legal basis for the Court to award any
15
additional compensation, and the Special Master rightly denied
16
their request for a special hardship award.
17
Allens' objection is OVERRULED.
Accordingly the
18
B.
Sean Felder
19
As mentioned above, the Court received a letter from Felder,
20
one of the claimants.
21
counsel, apparently sent to Felder some months ago in response to
22
correspondence from him.
23
indicated that under the terms of the settlement, Felder submitted
24
a claim form requesting a product bundle and indicating that he
25
spent "over $5,000" on BSMs.
26
product bundle and a cash payment of $1,000, or twenty percent of
27
$5,000, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
28
Attached was a letter from Plaintiffs'
The letter from Plaintiffs' counsel
Subsequently, Felder received a
Now Felder has written to the Court to indicate his
3
1
displeasure with his award.
2
should be awarded $10,000 more "because Amway tried to disrupt my
3
business, [and] use[d] discriminatory tactics to discourage me!"
4
In support of his discrimination allegations, he apparently
5
previously sent Plaintiffs' counsel a charge he filed with the
6
Michigan Department of Civil Rights and Equal Employment
7
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging racial discrimination
8
arising from Amway's alleged denial of payment and opportunities on
9
the basis of race.
Because there is no basis in the Settlement Agreement for
United States District Court
10
For the Northern District of California
Specifically, he indicates that he
11
granting Felder any additional compensation, the Court DENIES his
12
request.
13
Agreement in this case and this litigation generally do not cover
14
allegations of racial discrimination by Amway.
15
Felder wishes to allege discrimination by Amway or seek
16
compensation for Amway's allegedly discriminatory actions, he must
17
pursue his EEOC claims further or follow the process for obtaining
18
a right to sue from the EEOC.
19
Opportunity Commission, After You Have Filed A Charge,
20
http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/afterfiling.cfm.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
Nonetheless, the Court notes that the Settlement
As a result, if Mr.
See U.S. Equal Employment
4
1
2
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Allens' objection to
3
their special hardship award is OVERRULED.
4
Felder's request for
additional compensation is DENIED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: December 15, 2014
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?