Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER re: August 10, 2015 hearing. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/05/2015. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

GABRIELA BAYOL,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.
ZIPCAR, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-02483-TEH
ORDER RE: AUGUST 10, 2015
HEARING

Defendant.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The parties shall come to the August 10, 2015 hearing prepared to address the
following questions.

12
13

For Plaintiff

14

1.

Given the proposed class definition, why would the class be entitled to any

15

amount from “All Late Fees Collected in California” that is not already included in “Late

16

Fees Collected from California Residents Driving Anywhere in the United States?”

17
18
19

2.

Does Plaintiff actually dispute that class members are not entitled to recover

fees that have been refunded by Defendant?
3.

Does Plaintiff actually dispute that class members are not entitled to recover

20

fees that were charged prior to May 30, 2010, due to the application of the statute of

21

limitations? If so, why did Plaintiff use this date as the start of the relevant period for her

22

discovery requests?

23
24
25
26
27
28

4.

Why should the Court estimate attorneys’ fees at anything greater than 25%

of the common fund, when this amount is considered the “benchmark” award?
5.

How should the Court estimate the time period for evaluating the cost of

compliance with an injunction?
6.

The 30-day waiting period to amend the Complaint passed on June 28, 2014.

What accounts for the delay in filing the motion for leave to amend?

1

For Defendant

2

1.

What prejudice would Defendant suffer if leave to amend is granted?

3

2.

Does the amount of “refunded” late fees in the document produced to

4

Plaintiff only include fees that were terminated before being paid, or does it include fees

5

that were paid and then refunded?

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

3.

Why does the Class Action Fairness Act not abrogate the authorities that

preclude punitive damages or the value of injunctive relief from being aggregated?
4.

Does Defendant dispute that, if leave to amend is granted and punitive

damages are aggregated, then Plaintiff will have alleged a sufficient amount in
controversy?
5.

How should the Court estimate the time period for evaluating the cost of

compliance with an injunction?
6.

What accounts for the delay in filing the motion to dismiss?

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 08/05/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2