Schuchardt et al v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark

Filing 55

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on April 15, 2016. (jsclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIEL SCHUCHARDT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01329-JSC

v.
LAW OFFICE OF RORY W. CLARK,
Defendant.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
SUBMISSION ON MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 51

12
13

Plaintiffs Daniel Schuchardt (“Schuchardt”) and Michelle Muggli (“Muggli,” and together,

14

“Plaintiffs”) seek final approval of a class action settlement in this pre-certification consumer

15

action. The final approval hearing is scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2016.

16
17
18
19
20

The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Fund of $13,610, calculated as $10
per 1,361 class members. The Agreement provides further that “[s]hould the Parties discover that
there are additional, or fewer, Class Members, the Settlement Fund will be adjusted accordingly
such that the Settlement Fund consists of $10.00 per Class Member.” (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 17.A.)
Indeed, at the preliminary approval hearing, Class Counsel confirmed that the intent of the
Settlement Agreement was for each Class Member to receive $10.00, not a pro rata share of a

21
22
23
24

total fixed Settlement Fund. Nevertheless, in their motion for final approval, Plaintiffs now
estimate that participating Class Members will receive approximately $14.00 each because the
number of Class Members decreased from 1,361, as Plaintiffs estimated at the preliminary
approval hearing, to 930 Class Members, and there are six to 13 exclusions. (Dkt. No. 51 at 5.)

25

While the Court applauds the parties’ apparent (although not explicit) agreement to maintain the

26

size of the Settlement Fund and thus give higher payments to the fewer class members, such

27

approach appears to violate the plain language of the Agreement. They have not disclosed the

28

reason for this discrepancy, or whether they have modified the Agreement in writing. This silence

1

concerns the Court. For example, once the Court approves the settlement, will Defendant insist on

2

payments in accordance with the plain language of the Agreement, that is, $10 per class member?

3
4
5
6
7
8

The moving papers are also inconsistent as to the number of class member exclusions.
(Compare Dkt. No. 51 at 5 n.1 (stating that Class Members submitted 13 exclusions), with Dkt.
No. 51 at 15 (stating that Class Members submitted six exclusions).)
Accordingly, on or before April 25, 2016, the parties shall jointly submit a supplemental
filing that addresses the above concern regarding the discrepancy with the Settlement Agreement
language and identifies the number of Class Member objections and exclusions as well as the
number of undeliverable Notices.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2