Davis v. Cole Haan, Inc.

Filing 110

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING and Requiring Supplemental Briefing on 104 Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief due by 10/7/2015. Responses due by 10/21/2015. Replies due by 10/28/2015. Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 16, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TAMMIE DAVIS, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01826-JSW Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 COLE HAAN, INC., et al., ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards is scheduled for 14 a hearing on September 18, 2015. The Court has determined that it requires supplemental briefing 15 on the questions set forth below. Accordingly, it HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing to 16 November 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Because Plaintiffs are the moving party, they shall file the 17 supplemental brief required by this Order by no later than October 7, 2015. Any interested party 18 may file a response by October 21, 2015, and Plaintiffs may file a reply by October 28, 2015. If 19 the Court determines that the motion can be resolved without a hearing, it shall notify the parties 20 in advance of the hearing date. The supplemental briefs required by this Order shall not exceed 21 twelve pages. 22 1. In light of the fact that this motion relates to a motion for final approval of a 23 settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, are the parties required to provide additional 24 notice to class members regarding the renewed motion for fees before the Court can rule on that 25 motion? If Plaintiffs did provide additional notice to the class of the renewed motion, where in the 26 docket can the Court find a record of that fact? 27 28 2. papers? Is the Court required to hold a further hearing or may it rule on the motion on the 1 3. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs suggest that the Court’s Order resolving the motion 2 for fees was an interlocutory order. In that Order, the legal issue the Court decided was whether 3 the settlement was a coupon settlement, and the Court found that it was. The Court did grant 4 Plaintiffs’ leave to renew their motion for attorneys’ fees. However, it did so to permit them to 5 provide evidence of the actual redemption value of the coupons so that it could determine the 6 amount of fees to be awarded. 7 The Court entered a final judgment in this case on November 13, 2013, and Plaintiffs did 8 not appeal. What is Plaintiffs’ best argument that they could not have appealed the Court’s 9 determination that the settlement was a coupon settlement? 10 4. If the Court were to determine that it can, and should, revisit its prior ruling that the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 settlement was a coupon settlement, what is Plaintiffs’ best argument that In re Online DVD- 12 Rental Antitrust Litigation, 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015), represents an intervening change in the 13 law? See, e.g., Thomas v. Bible, 982 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing circumstances where 14 court may have discretion to revisit an issue that is the law of the case). The In re Online DVD- 15 Rental court explicitly stated that its holding was limited. 779 F.3d at 952 (“We conclude only 16 that the gift cards in this case are not subject to CAFA, without making a broader pronouncement 17 about every type of gift card that may appear.”). Similarly, what is Plaintiffs’ best argument that a 18 manifest injustice would result if the Court failed to award them the lodestar fee they request? 19 5. If the Court were to revisit its ruling, unlike the $20 off vouchers here, the class 20 members in the In re Online-DVD Rental case had the option of choosing cash instead of a gift 21 card, which the court stated undercut the argument that class members were forced to purchase 22 additional products from the defendant. The court also noted that gift cards in that case had no 23 expiration date and described the defendant, Walmart, as a low-cost retailer. 779 F.3d at 941, 950, 24 952. What is Plaintiffs’ best argument that notwithstanding those distinguishing facts, the Court 25 should alter its previous ruling that the settlement was a coupon settlement? 26 6. Plaintiffs shall explain the discrepancy regarding the claims submitted at the time 27 of the Final Approval Hearing and the actual number of $20-off vouchers distributed. (Compare 28 Docket No. 78-8, Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough, ¶ 6 with Docket no. 104-6, Declaration of 2 1 2 3 Jen nnifer M. Ke eough, ¶ 3.) IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: Septem mber 16, 2015 5 4 __ ___________ __________ ____ JE EFFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?