Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify USA Inc.

Filing 55

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE RE MOTION TO APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 2/27/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 16-03533 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.
SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DOES 1–10, inclusive,

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
RE MOTION TO APPOINT
INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

Defendants.
/

17
18

On July 1, 2016, the Notice Regarding Factors to be Evaluated for any Proposed Class

19

Settlement explained that “the Court prefers to litigate and vet a class certification motion before

20

any settlement discussions take place” (Dkt. No. 11 at 2). The reason for this preference is that

21

“it is reasonable to discount class members’ claims by the risk of litigation on the merits, but it is

22

not reasonable to further discount claims by the risk that class certification will be denied (id. at

23

5 (citing Howard Erichson, Beware the Settlement Class Action, DAILY JOURNAL, Nov. 24,

24

2014)). That notice stated that if counsel believe settlement discussions should precede class

25

certification, they should move for the appointment of interim class counsel, which would be

26

subject to a higher standard of fairness (ibid.).

27
28

Following a case management conference, an order set the deadline to move for class
certification as May 25, 2017, and referred the action to Judge Donna Ryu for settlement (Dkt.
No. 40). Following a telephone conference with the parties, Judge Ryu set the settlement
conference for April 10 — before the motion for class certification is due (Dkt. No. 53).

1

Plaintiffs now move to appoint their counsel as interim class counsel “through April 1,

2

2017” (Dkt. No. 54 at 7). It is unclear why they seek interim appointment only through April 1,

3

rather than through April 10 (the date of the settlement conference).*

4

For the reasons stated above, it would be inappropriate to appoint interim class counsel

5

unless some extenuating circumstances necessitate expediting settlement discussions to occur

6

before the class-certification stage. By THURSDAY, MARCH 2 AT NOON, counsel will please

7

state whether any such extenuating circumstances exist.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: February 27, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*

Plaintiffs’ brief mistakenly refers to both April 10 and April 11 (Pls.’ Mtn. at 3, 6).

2