Smith et al v. Leichtman et al

Filing 322

ORDER RE 321 CAFA Notice and Directing Joint Response from Parties. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 10, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRISTINA SMITH, et al., No. C 10-00010 JSW 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER RE CAFA NOTICE AND DIRECTING JOINT RESPONSE FROM PARTIES LEVINE LEICHTMAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 On February 10, 2014, Defendants filed the Declaration of Joseph A. Escarez, in which 17 they attach notices sent to the United States Attorney General, the California Attorney General, 18 the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Commissioner for the California Department of 19 Corporations of the pending settlement in the instant action. Defendants sent these notices 20 pursuant to a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which provides that “[n]ot 21 later than 10 days after a proposed settlement of a class action is filed in court, each defendant 22 that is participating in the proposed settlement shall serve upon the appropriate State official of 23 each State in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official, a notice of the 24 proposed settlement,” and other documents (hereinafter “CAFA Notice”). 28 U.S.C. § 25 1715(b)(1)-(7). 26 Defendants’ CAFA Notices, however, refer to the settlement agreement submitted to the 27 Court for preliminary approval in April 2013. In August 2013, the parties submitted the Second 28 Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement, which was the agreement the Court preliminarily 1 2 3 4 approved and which is the agreement that is pending before the Court for final approval. It does not appear from the record that the parties sent CAFA Notices that specifically reference that agreement. Pursuant to CAFA, “[a]n order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not 5 be issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal 6 official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice required under subsection 7 (b).” 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). CAFA also contains provisions that address the consequences of not 8 providing the notices required. See id. § 1715(e). 9 Accordingly, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to show cause as to whether the Court has authority to issue a final approval order even though the CAFA Notices do not 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 address the Second Amended Restated Agreement. If the parties intend to file CAFA Notices, 12 the Court will defer ruling on the motion for final approval and the motion for attorneys fees 13 until 90 days after the later of the dates on which notice is served. 14 The parties’ response to this Order to Show Cause shall be due on February 21, 2014. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 10, 2014 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?