Sabatino v. Rooney et al

Filing 138

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Conditionally Granting 127 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY INC. 8 Case No. 15-cv-00265-EMC SECUTITIES LITIGATION. 9 10 ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Docket No. 127 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 13 Currently pending before the Court is Lead Plaintiff‟s motion for preliminary approval of a 14 class action settlement. Having considered the papers submitted as well as the oral argument of 15 counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court hereby conditionally GRANTS the 16 motion. As a general matter, the Court finds that in light of, inter alia, the size of the recovery 17 relative to the maximum verdict value of the case and the risks of litigation, the settlement “„(1) 18 appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious 19 deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or 20 segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval.‟” Ruch v. Am Retail 21 Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-05352-MEJ, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39629, at *30-31 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 22 2016). The factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit favor preliminary approval. See Hanlon v. 23 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that factors to consider in evaluating 24 a settlement proposal include “the strength of the plaintiffs‟ case; the risk, expense, complexity, 25 and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the 26 trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 27 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and 28 the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement”). 1 2 3 The Court is prepared to unconditionally grant the motion if the parties are able to agree on the following:  specify a threshold). 4 5   Allowing a class member to respond to the notice by fax or e-mail (e.g., PDF) in addition to mail. 8 9 Providing for the same timing for a response to the class notice – i.e., claims, objections, and opt-outs are all due on the same day. 6 7 Providing for a reminder postcard if the response rate is low (the parties should  For both the long and summary notices, disclosing the dollar amounts for claim administration fees ($120,000-$135,000) and the incentive fee for Lead Plaintiff 11 ($5,000). 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 13 Within one week of the date of this order, the parties shall file a revised proposed order and (if necessary) an amended stipulation of settlement. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 19 Dated: March 27, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?