Ijecoma Esomonu v. Omnicare, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 55 , 59 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/23/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IJEOMA ESOMONU,

Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
9
10

OMNICARE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 59

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff Ijeoma Esomonu filed a motion for preliminary approval of

14

class action settlement. Dkt. No. 39. At the August 18, 2016, hearing on the motion for

15

preliminary approval, the Court expressed concerns about several of the settlement terms and

16

requested supplemental briefing from the parties. Dkt. No. 47.

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

The parties submitted their supplemental briefing on October 20, 2016, representing that
they would modify subsection 1 of the class release to read:
An alleged violation of any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681, et seq., the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section 1785, et seq.,
the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act,
California Civil Code section 1786, et seq., California Business and
Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any comparable
provision of federal, state or local law in any way relating to or
arising out of the facts alleged in the operative complaint, including
the procurement of, use of, disclosure of intent to procure, or
authorization to procure or use a consumer report, investigative
consumer report, credit check, background check, criminal history
report, reference check or similar report.
Dkt. No. 55 at 5:1-10.
On November 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the amended motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement. Dkt. No. 57. The Court again expressed concern that the

1

modified class release was broader than the factual predicate alleged by Plaintiff in the first

2

amended complaint (“FAC”), and requested supplemental briefing on the issue.

3

The parties submitted joint supplemental briefing on November 18, 2016, and agreed to

4

further narrow the class release. See Dkt. No. 59 (“Joint Briefing”). Specifically, the parties

5

agreed to eliminate subsection 2 of the class release but maintained that subsection 1 sufficiently

6

mirrored the factual predicate alleged in the FAC. Id. However, subsection 1 of the class release

7

included in the Joint Briefing does not reflect the version of subsection 1 submitted in the October

8

20, 2016, briefing. Compare id. at 2:17-25 with Dkt. No. 55 at 5:1-10. As phrased in the Joint

9

Briefing, subsection 1 references additional adverse action requirements and contains phrases

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

potentially broadening the release. See Joint Briefing at 2:17-25.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties to submit a joint supplemental brief of no

12

more than two pages, confirming that the final proposed class release is subsection 1 of the release

13

that the parties presented to the Court in the October 2016 supplemental briefing. The parties

14

must submit their joint supplemental brief by December 2, 2016.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2