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)

Download PDF
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: 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: 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: 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?