Pokorny et al v. Quixtar Inc et al

Filing 350

ORDER affirming 349 claims administrator's denial of BSM claimants Deisy Lopez Medina and Raj Bodepudi's requests for review. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on February 12, 2015. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015).

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
11

Plaintiffs,
v.

12

QUIXTAR, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

) Case No. 07-0201 SC
)
) ORDER RE: REQUESTS FOR REVIEW
) BY NEW BSM CLAIMANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

In June of 2013 the Court ordered the claims administrator to

17

send notice to the 91 BSM ("Business Support Materials") Claimants

18

whose BSM claims had previously been rejected in whole or in part.

19

ECF No. 285.

20

notified that if they disagreed with the claims administrators'

21

whole or partial rejection of their BSM claims, the BSM Claimants

22

could request review of the rejection by the Court.

As ordered by the Court, the BSM Claimants were

23

Now before the Court are two such requests, one filed by Deisy

24

Lopez Medina and the other by Raj Bodepudi on his own behalf and on

25

behalf of Gautham and Srikanth Bodepudi.

26

Argument on these requests for review is unnecessary under Civil

27

Local Rule 7-1(b), and based on the record the Court finds the

28

claims administrator's decision to reject these claims was

ECF No. 349 ("Notice").

1

appropriate.

2

the claims administrator is AFFIRMED.

3

Accordingly, the requests for review are DENIED and

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, class members

4

were entitled to seek reimbursement for BSMs, including

5

"motivational and/or training aids in the form of books, magazines,

6

other printed materials, audio tapes, video tapes, software, CDs,

7

other electronic media, rallies, meetings, functions, and

8

seminars."

9

6.1.1.

ECF No. 162-2 ("Settlement Agreement") at ¶¶ 1.4, 1.37,

The settlement agreement, as well as notices and the

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

rejection letters sent to the 91 BSM Claimants whose claims were

11

rejected in whole or in part, stated that "[p]urchases of Quixtar

12

products, computers, office supplies and equipment, etc." were not

13

eligible for reimbursement.

14

A, Tab 3, at 2.

15

ECF No. 349-1 ("Stinehart Decl.") Ex.

The claims administrator properly denied Lopez's request for

16

reimbursement because she seeks reimbursement for purchases of

17

Quixtar products, not BSMs.

18

declarations list numerous Nutrilite, Artistry, and other Quixtar

19

products, but do not list any motivational materials or training

20

aids like books or CDs that qualify as BSMs under the settlement

21

agreement.

22

6.1.1.

23

significant money and time on her business, that standing alone

24

does not entitle her to reimbursement.

25

basis for granting her request for reimbursement would be if she

26

sought reimbursement for expenses that qualify under the terms of

27

the settlement agreement.

28

administrator rightly rejected her claims.

For instance, Lopez's claim form and

ECF No. 162-2 ("Settlement Agreement") at ¶¶ 1.4, 1.37,

Similarly, while her letter points out that she spent

Instead, the only legal

Because she has not done so, the claims

2

1

The claims administrator also rightly denied reimbursement to

2

Bodepudi.

While Bodepudi's claim form and initial declarations

3

list, in a very general way, purchases that may qualify as business

4

support materials, including more than $1500 for books, $1000 for

5

CDs, and $5000 for "team development," after the claims

6

administrator requested additional verification, Bodepudi submitted

7

supplemental declarations listing only Quixtar products he

8

purchased, not BSM expenses.

9

at 2, with Stinehart Decl. Ex. B, Tab 2, at 1, 4, 7.

Compare Stinehart Decl. Ex. B, Tab 1,
Once again,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Quixtar products purchased by Bodepudi or others are not BSM

11

expenses, and are therefore not reimbursable under the settlement

12

agreement.

13

reimbursement for the purchases he has claimed, and the claims

14

administrator rightly denied his request for reimbursement on that

15

basis.

16
17

As a result, Bodepudi, like Lopez, is not entitled to

For these reasons, the requests for review are DENIED, and the
claims administrators' decisions are AFFIRMED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: February 12, 2015

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3