Walter et al v. Hughes Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying (98) Motion for Settlement in case 3:09-cv-02136-SC (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

TINA WALTER, CHISTOPHER
BAYLESS, AND ERIC SCHUMACHER,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and )
HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No. 09-2136 SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT

16
17

Now before the Court is a motion for preliminary approval of a

18

class action settlement and conditional class certification brought

19

by the parties in the above captioned matter.

20

Court denied the parties' previous motion for settlement because it

21

had several concerns about the certification of the class for

22

settlement purposes as well as the form of the proposed notice.

23

ECF No. 77.

24

previously raised by the Court.

25

ECF No. 98.

The

The revised settlement addresses most of the issues

However, the Court remains concerned about two administrative

26

issues.

27

objections, class members must mail separate letters to the Court,

28

class counsel, and defense counsel.

First, under the proposed settlement, in order to file

This process is burdensome for

1

the Court and the class members.

2

has been adopted in other class actions, would be for the parties

3

to mutually agree upon and appoint an independent administrator to

4

collect and organize objections and then forward those objections

5

to the Court and the parties.

6

independent administrator, then the Court may appoint a special

7

master.

8

long-form notice, is incomplete.

9

Courtroom 1 - 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

A more practical procedure, which

If the parties cannot agree on an

Second, the address of the Court, as it appears in the
The full address of the Court is

California 94102.
For these reasons the Court DENIES the motion for preliminary

12

approval of the class action settlement.

13

its ruling if the parties submit a revised settlement agreement and

14

notice which address the issues raised above.

The Court will reconsider

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated:

February 8, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2