Larkin v. Yelp! Inc.
Filing
49
STATUS REPORT Re: Objections and Claims by Justin Larkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Claims Report November 2, 2012)(Vigil-Gallenberg, Rosa) (Filed on 11/2/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Peter Rukin (SBN 178336)
RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 421-1800
Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
E-mail: peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com
Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg (SBN 251872)
GALLENBERG PC
9701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90071
Telephone: (310) 295-1654
Facsimile: (310) 733-5654
Email: rosa@gallenberglaw.com
Ian McLoughlin
Tom Urmy
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
53 State Street 13th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: theyman@shulaw.com
Attorneys for Representative Plaintiffs
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
19
JUSTIN LARKIN, ANTHONY TIJERINO, and
AHMAD DEANES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
20
21
22
23
Case No. 3:11-cv-01503-EMC
PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
AND STATUS OF CLAIMS
Plaintiffs,
v.
Date: November 30, 2012
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 5 -17th Floor
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
YELP! INC.,
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:11-cv-01503-EMC
1
Plaintiffs’ hereby respectfully submit this report on the status of objections and claims in
2
this matter.
3
OBJECTIONS
There are no current objections to the settlement at this time. 1
4
5
CLAIMS
6
On October 19, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement informing
7
this Court that the parties were in the midst of meeting and conferring on whether or not some late/
8
deficient and/or outstanding claims would be honored and that an updated report on this issue
9
would be provided to this Court. Docket (“Dkt.”) 48 at 2, Fn. 2. Below is an update on these
10
issues.
11
As of November 2, 2012, there are nine class members who had submitted late claim forms
12
and three class members who had submitted deficient claim forms. Dkt. 48 at 8 Ln. 21-23. There
13
were also three additional individuals not included in the original class list who contend they are
14
entitled to settlement payments (“Self-Identifying Class Members”). Id. Defense counsel has
15
confirmed that all three Self-Identifying Class Members are actually Class Members entitled to
16
receive settlement payments should they submit a claim form.
17
On October 16, Counsel for the parties directed the Settlement Administrator to mail a
18
letter to the eleven individuals who had submitted late or deficient claims as of that date (“Cure
19
Letter”). Dkt. 48 at 8 Ln. 24-27. Four of the eight class members who had submitted late claims
20
responded to the Cure Letter. One of the three individuals who had deficient claim forms cured the
21
deficient claim.
22
Yelp has agreed to honor five late claims. Plaintiff’s position is that the remaining four late
23
claims should also be honored, particularly in the event that they eventually provide good cause for
24
the late submission.
25
1
26
27
A class member who submitted a late claim did express his intent to object to the Settlement in
the event his claim was not honored. Yelp has agreed to honor his claim (which was formally
tendered on October 29, 2012, along with a letter explaining the reason for its tardiness), and the
class member has expressed his satisfaction with that result.
28
Case No. 8:11-cv-00467-DOC -VBK
-1-
Plaintiff’s Report on Objections &
Status of Claims
1
Based on five late claims being honored, one deficient claim cured, and three self-
2
identifying Class Members participating, the current gross settlement to be paid by Yelp will be
3
$805,924.02. 2 Should all nine late claims be honored, the gross settlement payment would be
4
$809,367.07.
An updated claims report from the settlement administrator is attached as Exhibit A.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dated: November 2, 2012
14
Respectfully submitted,
GALLENBERG PC
15
By: /s/ Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg________________
Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
The $845,000 estimate provided in the Motion for Final Approval was incorrect and the result of
a mathematical error in the application of the settlement formula (in particular, in the allocation of
unsought attorneys’ fees). Application of the formulas described in paragraphs 1.22, 1.23, 1.24
and 2.8.1 of the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 48, Exhibit 1 to Rukin Declaration), will result in the
payments described above.
28
Case No. 3:11-cv-01503-EMC
-2Plaintiff’s Report on Objections & Status of Claims
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?