MacConnach et al v. First Franklin Financial Corporation et al

Filing 58

ORDER for resending notice to class memebers and implementing a revised schedule re 56 Stipulation filed by Chuck MacConnach. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/10/09. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eric H. Gibbs (State Bar No. 178658) ehg@girardgibbs.com Dylan Hughes (State Bar No. 209113) dsh@girardgibbs.com GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 George A. Hanson (admitted pro hac vice) hanson@stuevesiegel.com Richard M. Paul III (admitted pro hac vice) paul@stuevesiegel.com STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Terry E. Sanchez (State Bar No. 101318) terry.sanchez@mto.com Katherine M. Forster (State Bar No. 217609) katherine.forster@mto.com MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 683-9538 Facsimile: (213) 593-2838 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHUCK MacCONNACH et al., individually, and ) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. 3:08-cv-04154 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR RESENDING NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS AND IMPLEMENTING A REVISED SCHEDULE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RESENDING NOTICE AND REVISING SCHEDULE CASE NO. 3:08-cv-04154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 24, 2009, the Court approved the settlement of the FLSA collective action in this case and granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the Rule 23 class action. [Doc. #51]. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the parties' proposed allocation formula was used to calculate awards for the FLSA and Rule 23 class members and notice was sent to the class members by first class mail. (Id. at 2-3). To date, there have been no objections to the settlement. A hearing for the motions for final approval of the settlements and for attorney fees and expenses is set for November 13, 2009.1 In the course of finalizing the settlement data, however, the parties have discovered an error in the settlement allocation formula used to calculate the class members' awards. The error stems from the parties' examination of the Defendants' payroll data; the payroll data came from two different sources and proved to be exceedingly complex, making it difficult to merge into one comprehensive source for calculation purposes. As a result, although Plaintiffs' calculation error is not substantial in the aggregate, it did not produce the proper allocations for the class members. The parties believe that notice should be resent to all eligible Plaintiffs and class members, informing them of the correct estimated settlement allocations, affording them a new opportunity to object to or request exclusion from the settlement, and affording those who did not submit a claim an opportunity to do so.2 The parties respectfully request that they be directed to submit a proposed schedule to the Court, no later than November 13, 2009, which will govern resending notice, a new time period for the Plaintiffs and class members to respond, and a new date for the final approval hearing. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties hereto, through their respective counsel of record, as follows: On October 30, 2009, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting that Plaintiffs be allowed until November 4, 2009, to file the motions for final approval of the settlements and for attorney fees and expenses. 2 Plaintiffs will bear the costs associated with this process and will not seek to recover these costs from the maximum settlement amount. 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RESENDING NOTICE AND REVISING SCHEDULE CASE NO. 3:08-cv-04154 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The final approval hearing scheduled for November 13, 2009, is postponed; the parties shall submit a proposed schedule to the Court by November 13, 2009, which will govern the resending of notice (consistent with the Settlement Agreement previously approved by the Court), an additional period for class members to respond, and a new date for the final approval hearing. DATED: November 4, 2009 By: /s/ Eric H. Gibbs Dylan Hughes GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: ehg@girardgibbs.com Email: dsh@girardgibbs.com George A. Hanson Richard M. Paul III STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com Email: paul@stuevesiegel.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: November 4, 2009 By: /s/ Terry E. Sanchez Katherine M. Forster MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 335 S. Grand Ave., 35th Floor Los Angeles, Ca 90071 Tel: 213-683-9538 Fax: 213-593-2838 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RESENDING NOTICE AND REVISING SCHEDULE CASE NO. 3:08-cv-04154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Email: terry.sanchez@mto.com Email: katherine.forster@mto.com Attorneys for Defendants First Franklin Financial Corporation and Merrill Lvnch & Co., Inc., as named and as erroneously sued as Global Markets and Investment Banking Group 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RESENDING NOTICE AND REVISING SCHEDULE CASE NO. 3:08-cv-04154 1 2 3 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Judge UNIT ED Dated: November 10, 2009 S 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA ER N F D IS T IC T O R 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RESENDING NOTICE AND REVISING SCHEDULE CASE NO. 3:08-cv-04154 A C LI FO har Judge C les R. B reyer R NIA O OR IT IS S DERED RT U O NO RT H

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?