Scott et al v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

Filing 54

ORDER Re Supplemental Briefing and/or Evidence re Docket No. #53 . Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/16/2018. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANDRE SCOTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-06869-EMC
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE

v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Docket No. 53

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant.
12
13

No collective or class action has been certified in this case. The parties have filed a

14

stipulation indicating that the named plaintiffs are dismissing their individual claims with

15

prejudice and that they are dismissing the class claims without prejudice. See Docket No. 53

16

(stipulation).

17
18
19
20
21

22
23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) requires the Court to
review and approve a proposed voluntary dismissal, settlement, or
other compromise of a certified class’s claims. The Ninth Circuit
has held that Rule 23(e) also applies to settlements before
certification, but in a much lighter form that does not entail "the kind
of substantive oversight required when reviewing a settlement
binding upon the class." Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876
F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). Although there has been “some
uncertainty” about whether this holding applies in the wake of the
2003 amendments to Rule 23(e), courts in this district continue to
follow Diaz to evaluate the proposed settlement and dismissal of
putative class claims.

24

Dunn v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., No. 13-cv-05456-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

25

4338, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016).

26
27
28

Under Diaz, a court
inquire[s] into possible prejudice from (1) class members’ possible
reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it
either because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of

2

adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a
rapidly approaching statute of limitations, [and] (3) any settlement
or concession of class interests made by the class representative or
counsel in order to further their own interests.

3

Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1408. “If, after considering these factors, a district court concludes that there is

4

a risk of prejudicial or unfair impacts from the pre-certification settlement of putative class claims,

5

Diaz also held that district courts may require notice to putative class members.” Dunn, 2016 U.S.

6

Dist. LEXIS 4338, at *9.

1

7

The Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs and/or evidence regarding the Diaz

8

factors. The briefs shall include a description of all publicity concerning this case and its filing.

9

There may be either cross-briefs or a joint brief, with all briefing to be filed within a week of the

10

date of this order.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: January 16, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2