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)
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?