Stickrath et al v. Globalstar, Inc.

Filing 215

ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Setting Hearing on re 189 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. (tehlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EDWARD M. WALSH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBALSTAR, INC., Defendant. NO. C07-1941 TEH ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15

On September 14, 2009, Plaintiffs Edward M. Walsh and David F. Kesler, Jr.

16 (collectively "Plaintiffs") moved this Court for an order preliminarily approving the proposed 17 Class Settlement Agreement they had reached with Defendant Globalstar, Inc. 18 ("Globalstar"). The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion was continued pending the approval of the 19 agreement by Globalstar's board of directors. By letter dated November 12, 2009 (Doc. 20 200), Globalstar's counsel notified the Court that its board had decided not to "go forward 21 with the settlement." 22 On March 10, 2010, Plaintiffs and Globalstar filed a Joint Notice of Settlement (Doc. 23 214), informing the Court that the parties had "resolved their outstanding issues," and that 24 Plaintiffs and Globalstar's board of directors had "approved the Class Settlement 25 Agreement." Although neither party requests a hearing on the motion for preliminary 26 approval, the Court has several questions regarding the agreement reached by the parties. 27 Therefore, for good cause appearing, the parties shall appear for a hearing on Plaintiffs' 28

1 motion for preliminary approval on Monday, March 29, 2010, at 10:00am. The case 2 management conference previously scheduled for the same date at 1:30pm is VACATED. 3 The parties shall be prepared to address the following questions at the March 29

4 hearing: 5 1. 6 7 8 9 10 The Class is defined in the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") as "[a]ll persons in the United States who purchased a Globalstar satellite telephone and Service from April 2003 to February 2007." The Settlement Class is defined as "all persons who were Subscribers to Globalstar Satellite Service in the United States and were not in default on their subscription payments at any time from January 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007." The class definition has been substantially narrowed for settlement purposes: the TAC class spanned 47 months, but the Settlement Class only 14. Furthermore, the Settlement Class excludes anyone who was "in default on their subscription payments at any time" during those 14 months. Please explain the rationale for these changes. Also, how is "in default" defined? The forms of available relief depend on whether a Settlement Class Member is a Current Subscriber or a Former Subscriber. "Former Subscribers" are defined as "Settlement Class Members who were Subscribers at any time during the Class Period but were not current Subscribers as of June 1, 2009." "Current Subscribers" are "Settlement Class Members who were Subscribers at any time during the Class Period and are still Subscribers." What relief is available for Settlement Class Members who canceled their subscriptions after June 1, 2009 (excluding them from the "Former Subscribers" category) but before receiving the Post-Settlement Notice and electing a remedy (meaning they are not "Current Subscribers")? The $50.00 credit available to Current Subscribers who maintain an Unlimited Service Plan or change to the Evolution Monthly Plan, and to Former Subscribers who purchase an Unlimited Service Plan, will only be posted to those accounts 12 months after the Final Settlement Date. This, in effect, requires class members to maintain

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 2. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3. 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4. 4 5

their subscriptions for another year in order to receive their elected relief. Why is the credit not made available immediately? The Parties noted in the Proposed Order that the Settlement Administrator would "be recommended by the Parties." Have the Parties done so?

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 3/16/10 9 10 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3