Sarinana v. DS Waters of America, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER Modifying September 5, 2014 Temporary Restraining Order (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HECTOR SARINANA,

9

Plaintiff,
Related Case:
No. C-14-2996 EMC

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0905 EMC

DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC.,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13

ORDER MODIFYING SEPTEMBER 5,
2014 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

ARJAY HALEY, etc.,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
17
18

Defendants.
___________________________________/

19
20

On September 5, 2014, this Court issued a temporary restraining order ordering members of

21

The Turley Law Firm to refrain from initiating or having discussions with members of the

22

conditional settlement class in this action. In response, Mr. David Mara of the The Turley Law Firm

23

contacted the Court and indicated that there were three individuals – Parker Davis (named plaintiff

24

in Davis v. DS Waters of America, Inc., No. 14-cv-0250), Terry Dupree, and Richard Schleif – who

25

had initiated contact with and eventually retained The Turley Law Firm prior to the commencement

26

solicitation efforts by The Turley Law Firm. Following a conference call with the parties and Mr.

27

Mara, Mr. Mara was directed to submit a sworn declaration and to fax the relevant communications

28

with Mr. Dupree and Mr. Schleif to the Court for in camera review.

1

Based on the Court’s review of the in camera documents, and in reliance of the sworn

2

representations by Mr. Mara in his declaration, the Court finds that The Turley Law Firm established

3

an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Dupree and Mr. Schleif prior to the solicitation efforts which

4

gave rise to the Court’s temporary restraining order. The Class Notice expressly recognized that the

5

class members could retain their own attorney – specifically in regards to objecting to the settlement.

6

See Dkt. No. 80, at 37 (“You may object to the proposed settlement in writing. You may also appear

7

at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through

8

your own attorney you are responsible for paying that attorney.”). Further, Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) recognizes that a “class member may enter an appearance through an

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

attorney if the member so desires.”
The Court will not restrict The Turley Law Firm’s ability to communicate with clients it

12

retained prior to the conduct in question. Accordingly, this Court’s temporary restraining order is

13

hereby MODIFIED to permit The Turley Law Firm to communicate with Mr. Davis, Mr. Dupree,

14

and Mr. Schleif. The propriety of the remainder of the temporary restraining order will be addressed

15

by the Court at the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, 2014.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED

18
19

Dated: September 5, 2014

20
21

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2