Palana v. Mission Bay Inc. et al

Filing 151

ORDER RE: AMENDED CLASS NOTICE 140 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05235-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE: AMENDED CLASS
NOTICE

9
10

MISSION BAY INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 13, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

14

approval of a class action settlement. On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration

15

attaching: (1) an amended class notice to address concerns the Court raised at the hearing and (2)

16

an amended worksheet regarding distribution of settlement funds to allot to class members roughly

17

$20,000 that was previously unallocated. Docket No. 149, Supp. Decl. of Tomas E. Margain

18

(“Margain Decl.”).

19
20
21
22

The Court has reviewed the amended class notice, Docket No. 149-1, and finds that the
following issues remain to be corrected:
 Page 1 reads: “Contest the basis for determining your settlement award. See
section _ below.” This should read, “. . . See section 23 below.”

23

 Page 3, Question 8 reads: “The Court previously certified a class of current and

24

former MISSION BAY employees who were employed in California, as care staff

25

workers at any time from November 12, 2009 to December 1, 2013.” As discussed

26

at the hearing, the class period runs from November 12, 2009 to November 12,

27

2013. See also Docket No. 81 at 4.

28

 Page 19, Question 20. Plaintiffs have deleted the third sentence from their

1

previously proposed class notice, Docket No. 142-2: “Class members are not

2

personally liable for any fees and costs, and MISSION BAY will pay these fees and

3

costs.” At the hearing, the Court discussed deleting the second sentence from this

4

section of the prior class notice, but did not instruct plaintiffs to delete the third

5

sentence.

6

understanding of the settlement and should be added back to the class notice.

The Court finds that this sentence is important to class members’

7

 Page 7, Question 26. The time for the final approval hearing on August 5, 2016,

8

should be listed as 10:00 a.m., not 9:00 a.m., as discussed at the preliminary

9

approval hearing.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court will not rule on the motion for preliminary approval until it receives an executed

12

amended settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs have indicated that they anticipate the amended

13

agreement will be filed on May 18, 2016. Margain Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs are also ORDERED to

14

file a further amended class notice in accordance with the guidance above.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2