Villaflor v. Equifax Information Services, LLC.

Filing 171

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SUPPLEMENT FILINGS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT. The parties are directed to supplement the record, no later than noon, April 27, 2011, by filing (1) all exclusion requests submitted to the Claims Administrator, and (2) any objection submitted to the Claims Administrator that was not filed with the Court. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 20, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

OBELIA D. VILLAFLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.
/

16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO
SUPPLEMENT FILINGS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT

v.

15

17

No. 09-cv-00329 MMC

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Settlement Approval, filed April 15,
2011, which motion is supported by, inter alia, the Declaration of Seth M. Lehrman
(“Lehrman”), plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Affidavit of Tore Hodne (“Hodne”), a Senior Project
Administrator employed by the Claims Administrator.1 Having read and considered the
above-referenced filings, the Court will direct the parties to supplement the record to clarify
two ambiguities therein.
First, the record includes conflicting statements as to the number of persons who
have excluded themselves from the class. In his affidavit, Hodne states that “seven

25
26
27
28

1

The Hodne Affidavit was filed by defendant. Defendant, however, failed to provide
the Court with a chambers copy of that filing. For future reference, defendant is reminded
that, pursuant to Northern District General Order 45 and this Court’s Standing Orders,
parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that
is filed electronically, such copy to be delivered no later than noon on the day after the
document is filed electronically.

1

persons requested exclusion” (see Hodne Affidavit ¶ 10), none of whom are identified. By

2

contrast, in an exhibit titled “Opt-Outs,” attached to the Lehrman Declaration, nine persons

3

are identified (see Lehrman Declaration Ex. A); with one exception, however, Lehrman

4

does not state the basis for his statement that any such person opted out of the class.2

5

Second, Hodne states that one objection was submitted to the Claims Administrator.

6

Because Hodne does not identify the name of the objector, however, it is unclear from the

7

record whether the Claims Administrator received a copy of one of the two objections filed

8

with the Clerk of the Court, specifically, the objection filed by Thelma Congdon or by Shar

9

Ron White, or whether the Claims Administrator may have received a third objection.

10

Accordingly, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to supplement the record, no later

11

than noon, April 27, 2011, by filing (1) all exclusion requests submitted to the Claims

12

Administrator, and (2) any objection submitted to the Claims Administrator that was not

13

filed with the Court.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: April 20, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Lehrman appears to state that the two individuals who filed objections with the Clerk
also opted out of the class. (See Lehrman Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.) Although one such objector,
Thelma Congdon, titled her filing in part “Conditional Opt Out,” the only other objector, Shar
Ron White, did not include any language in her objection to indicate she had opted out of
the class.
2