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)

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