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)

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