McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC

Filing 131

ORDER DENYING DAVID LAPA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 2, 2019. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2019)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

BAERBEL MCKINNEY-DROBNIS,
JOSEPH B. PICCOLA, and CAMILLE
BERLESE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-06450-MMC
ORDER DENYING DAVID LAPA'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 125

v.
MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC,
Defendant.

13
14

Before the Court is David Lapa's ("Lapa") "Administrative Motion," filed September

15

23, 2019. Defendant Massage Envy Franchising, LLC ("MEF") has filed opposition.

16

Having read and considered the above-referenced filings, the Court rules as follows.

17

By order filed June 7, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a class action

18

settlement in the above-titled case, which order sets forth the procedure for persons who

19

fall within the class definition to submit a claim, to object to the settlement, and to exclude

20

themselves from the settlement. As explained therein, a person who "timely and properly

21

requests to be excluded from the settlement . . . will not have any right to object to,

22
23

appeal from, or comment on the settlement." (See Order, filed June 7, 2019, ¶ 19.)
In his Administrative Motion, Lapa "requests to be excluded" and "to be afforded

24

the right to appear at the final approval hearing to object to the settlement." (See Lapa's

25

Admin. Mot. at 2:22-26.) As set forth above, however, such proposed procedure is

26

precluded by the Court's June 7 Order, and Lapa fails to identify any cognizable basis for

27

reconsideration of that order. Moreover, as Lapa acknowledges, he has already "timely

28

1

notified the settlement administrator of his request for exclusion" (see id. at 1:6-7), and,

2

consequently, he lacks standing to object to the settlement. See Mayfield v. Barr, 985

3

F.2d 1090, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (dismissing, for lack of standing, appeal from order

4

approving class settlement, where appellants had "withdraw[n]" from class; finding

5

persons who "have opted out" of class settlement "lack standing to object" thereto).

6

Accordingly, Lapa's administrative motion is hereby DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: October 2, 2019
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2