Haidee Estrella v. Freedom Financial Network LLC et al

Filing 252

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

HAIDEE ESTRELLA, an individual, and
ANGELICA ARITA, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. CV 09-03156 SI
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT

v.
FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC;
FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, INC.; FREEDOM
DEBT RELIEF, LLC; GLOBAL CLIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC; ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BANK AND TRUST; ANDREW HOUSSER;
and BRADFORD STROH
Defendants.

/

17
On December 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
18
settlement between plaintiffs and two of the defendants in this case: Global Client Solution, LLC
19
(“Global”) and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (“RMBT”). The remaining defendants (the “Freedom
20
Defendants”) filed an opposition to the proposed settlement on December 20, 2011. Plaintiffs, as well
21
as Global and RMBT, filed replies on December 30, 2011. A hearing is scheduled for the motion on
22
January 13, 2012.
23
Scheduled for January 20, 2012 is a hearing on the Freedom Defendants’ separate motion to
24
decertify the current class. See Doc. 233. In the instant moving papers regarding approval of the class
25
settlement, the parties dispute whether the outcome of that motion will affect the proposed settlement
26
27
28

1

between plaintiffs and Global/RMBT.1 Whether or not it does, the Court believes that it will be better

2

informed regarding the merits of the instant motion after it has decided the decertification motion. The

3

Court therefore VACATES the January 13, 2012 hearing. At the January 20, 2012 hearing, the parties

4

may present arguments regarding the proposed settlement if they wish, along with their arguments

5

regarding the decertification motion. Otherwise, the Court will consider the matter submitted on the

6

papers.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: January 11 , 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Specifically, the parties dispute the propriety of creating a settlement fund that may be used for
litigation against Freedom Defendants in light of a potential decertification order.
2