Minor et al v. FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER setting forth questions for preliminary approval hearing. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 GARY MINOR, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 8 v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., 9 Defendant. NO. C09-1375 TEH ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 This matter is scheduled for hearing on Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary 12 approval of class action settlement on December 3, 2012. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ 13 submissions, the Court is concerned about several provisions of the proposed settlement. 14 The Court therefore orders the parties to be prepared to address the following questions at the 15 hearing: 16 1. What justifies $25,000 incentive payments to the class representatives when the 17 average class member would receive only a few hundred dollars under the proposed 18 settlement? 19 2. Why should absent class members be required to submit a claim form instead 20 of being sent a check with a notice that cashing the check constitutes acceptance of the 21 release and the other terms of the settlement? Isn’t it relatively easy to locate the class 22 members, many of whom still work for FedEx? 23 3. Why should the Court approve a waiver of settlement rights that applies to 24 absent class members who do not receive the claim form? 25 4. 26 FedEx? 27 28 Why is it reasonable for up to 55% of the Net Settlement Amount to revert to 1 5. If not all class members submit claims, wouldn’t the payment to Plaintiffs’ 2 counsel be unreasonably disproportionate? For example, if only the minimum 45% of the 3 Net Settlement Amount is paid out to class members, the attorneys would receive 4 approximately 75% of the amount paid to the class. 5 6. Given that Plaintiffs allege ongoing violations, should the Court approve a 6 settlement that does not require any changes to FedEx’s policies? 7 7. Has FedEx complied with the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)? 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 11/20/2012 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?