Aguilar et al v. Citizens Automobile Finance, Inc et al

Filing 118

Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 3, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
JOSE AGUILAR, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12

No. C 10-05345 JSW

v.

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE
RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

CITIZENS AUTOMOBILE FINANCE, INC.,
et al.,

13
14

Defendants.
/

15
16

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

17

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

18

HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 7, 2012 at 9:00 A.M.:

19

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

20

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

21

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

22

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies

23

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

24

to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional

25

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

26

argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of

27

counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the

28

Court’s questions contained herein.

1

The Court tentatively grants the motion for final approval and the motion for fees and

2

costs. The Court tentatively overrules the objection submitted by Antonio Navarette and

3

tentatively denies his alternative request for exclusion.

4

The parties shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

5

1.

In his letter, dated October 24, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he told Mr.

6

Navarette’s counsel that Mr. Navarette “is part of the settlement or ... is excluded,” but could

7

not do both. (Docket No. 113, Declaration of Bryan Kemnitzer, Ex. D.) That language does

8

not comport with Mr. Kemnitzer’s statement that “it is [his] understanding that [Mr. Navarette]

9

does not object to the settlement,” and has requested that he be excluded. (Kemnitzer Decl., ¶

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

5.)
a.

12
13

what is their position on whether Mr. Navarette objects or seeks to be excluded?
b.

14
15

Is either Mr. Navarette or his counsel present in court for the hearing? If so,

Did Mr. Kemnitzer speak with Mr. Navarette’s counsel after he sent the letter on
October 24, 2012?

c.

How do Plaintiffs, and if Mr. Navarette is present, how does he respond to

16

Defendants’ position that (a) Mr. Navarette is a member of the settlement class;

17

and (b) that his request to be excluded from the settlement is improper and

18

untimely?

19
20
21
22
23
24

2.

Have there been any additional objections or requests for exclusion since

November 16, 2012?
3.

Have the parties complied with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1715 and, if so,

where in the record can the Court find proof of compliance? See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2