Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc.

Filing 220

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 215 Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and 216 Motion for Settlement, and REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING. Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 20, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ELLIOT ZEISEL, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, No. C 10-01192 JSW v. ORDER CONTINUING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING AND REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING DIAMOND FOODS, INC., Defendant. / 14 15 This matter is scheduled for a hearing on August 24, 2012, to consider Plaintiff’s motion 16 for final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees. The Court has 17 considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it 18 concludes that additional briefing and filings are required. Accordingly, the Court 19 CONTINUES the final approval hearing to Friday, October 12, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Counsel 20 shall post notice of this continuance on the Settlement Website and the claims deadline shall be 21 extended accordingly. 22 Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees based on a percentage of recovery. However, courts 23 routinely cross-check such requests by use of the lodestar method. See Davis v. Kellog Co., – 24 F.3d –, 2012 WL 2870128, at *8 (9th Cir. July 13, 2012) Plaintiff does not provide 25 particularized information about the nature of the work performed by attorneys who worked on 26 this case. Mr. Kravec provides some basis information about the type of work his firm did, but 27 neither Mr. Braun nor Ms. Speilberg provide any information about what work they performed. 28 Thus, the Court cannot assess whether or not their fees are reasonable under a lodestar method. Plaintiffs should also address why each attorneys’ hourly rates should be considered reasonable. 1 Plaintiff shall submit supplemental briefing addressing these issues by no later Friday, 2 September 14, 2012. 3 The Court also notes that Exhibit 1 to Ms. Speilberg’s declaration is a chart that purports 4 to detail the total time spent on this litigation. However, that chart refers to Mr. Braun and his 5 firm. Plaintiff shall submit a corrected declaration from Ms. Speilberg the supplemental 6 briefing required by this Order. 7 Finally, the Court notes that in the Davis case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the 8 district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement that included a cy pres distribution 9 of the remainder of any settlement funds that is similar to the cy pres distribution approved in this case. The parties shall submit supplemental briefing on the issue of why the cy pres 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 distribution is appropriate in light of Davis and whether the Davis decision, and the cases on 12 which it relies, impact the settlement in this case by September 14, 2012. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 20, 2012 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 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?