Bartelt v. Affymax, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF FINAL SETTLEMENT - The final fairness hearing will be conducted on December 10, 2014, starting at 1:45 p.m. By 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014, Lead Counsel shall f ile a statement, not to exceed six pages, addressing the issues raised in 85 Objection. Affymax need not file a response; it may join Lead Counsel's statement or, if it wishes, file its own six-page statement by December 8, 2014. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/03/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TRICIA M. BARTELT, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-01025-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

AFFYMAX, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF
FINAL SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 85

12
13
14

The parties have filed a motion for final approval of class action settlement. Dkt. No. 86.
The final fairness hearing will be conducted on December 10, 2014, starting at 1:45 p.m.

15

On December 1, 2014, the Court received and filed a 35-page statement of objections to

16

the proposed settlement by Michelle Enright, who purports to be a class member. Dkt. No. 85.

17

On December 3, 2014, Lead Counsel for plaintiffs filed a declaration which states that Ms. Enright

18

lacks standing to object to the settlement because she has not produced confirmation that she

19

purchased shares during the Class Period. Lead Counsel also asserts that Ms. Enright’s objections

20

lack merit and denies several of her allegations. Dkt. No. 87 ¶¶ 63-72. However, it does not

21

appear that Lead Counsel addressed all of the points raised by Ms. Enright. For example, Lead

22

Counsel does not appear to respond to the objection that the proposed class inappropriately

23

includes long purchasers, short sellers and options traders. Nor does Lead Counsel respond to the

24

assertion that the release in the proposed settlement is too broad.

25

I express no opinion regarding the merits of these objections; I note merely that they have

26

been raised. Additional briefing from Lead Counsel would be helpful to assess these objections

27

before the fairness hearing. Accordingly, by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014, Lead

28

Counsel shall file a statement, not to exceed six pages, addressing these issues. Lead Counsel

1

may also address any other issues raised by Ms. Enright to which Lead Counsel finds a

2

response is warranted. Affymax need not file a response, it may join Lead Counsel’s

3

statement or, if it wishes, file its own six-page statement by December 8, 2014.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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
2