Dunn v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America, A New York Entity et al

Filing 155

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS by Haywood S Gilliam, Jr denying 143 Motion for Settlement.(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KATHLEEN DUNN, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05456-HSG

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF SETTLMENT
AGREEMENTS

v.
9
TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 143

As explained on the record at the May 7, 2015 hearing, the parties’ request for settlement

13

approval is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In addition to correcting the deficiencies

14

identified by the Court at the hearing, any subsequent motion for approval must also provide the

15

Court with adequate information to allow it to determine whether the settlement agreements are

16

“fair and reasonable” resolutions of “bona fide” disputes. Yue Zhou v. Wang’s Rest., No. C 05-

17

0279 PVT, 2007 WL 2298046, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2007). Though the parties are not

18

required to apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s “fairness factors” when a class settlement

19

is not sought, these factors should guide any subsequent motion for approval. See Lewis v. Vision

20

Value, LLC, No. 1:11-CV-01055-LJO, 2012 WL 2930867, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012) (court

21

may consider whether to give notice to class members, and assess “whether the proposed

22

settlement and dismissal are tainted by collusion or will prejudice absent putative members with a

23

reasonable ‘reliance’ expectation of the maintenance of the action for the protection of their

24

interests”) (citation omitted).

25
In discussing these factors, the parties must do more than simply re-present the pro forma
26
assertions from the motion the Court just denied. To give one example, the parties must provide
27
the Court with a sufficient basis to evaluate the fairness of the proposed amounts to be paid to
28

1

each settling plaintiff (in light of plaintiffs’ apparent intention to abandon the class claims). It is

2

not enough to assert that “the Parties agree that the amount offered in settlement, especially in

3

light of the amounts already received by the Plaintiffs, represents a fair and equitable resolution of

4

the parties’ disputes.” Mot. at 5. The parties should explain how the settlement amounts were

5

calculated, what the “amounts already received by the Plaintiffs” were, and how those other

6

payments are relevant. Similarly, the fact that “discovery in this case has only just begun, with no

7

plaintiff having yet sat for deposition,” id., raises a question as to how the plaintiffs can reasonably

8

assess the strength of their case, or the appropriateness of the settlement amounts, at this stage.

9

On these issues and all of the other Rule 23 factors, the parties must provide sufficient, non-

10

conclusory information to permit the Court to assess the fairness of the proposed settlement.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
15

Dated: May 8, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2