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)

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