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)

Download PDF
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?