Price et al v. TEKsystems Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER re stipulated application for distribution of residual settlement funds. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 2/3/2016. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRANDON PRICE, et al., 9 10 v. TEKSYSTEMS INC., ORDER RE STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT FUNDS Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 06-cv-4990-PJH Plaintiffs, 8 12 13 14 Before the court is the parties’ stipulated application for distribution of residual 15 settlement funds. In the stipulation, the parties explain that the funds from a class action 16 settlement have been distributed to the class members, but that a number of the 17 settlement checks went uncashed. The parties further explain that the settlement 18 administrator made a request to the Internal Revenue Service for the return of the 19 employer and employee share of taxes from those uncashed checks. The settlement 20 administrator received a tax refund of $16,365.28; of which $3,138.35 represents the 21 employer’s share of the tax refund, and $13,206.93 represents the class members’ share 22 of the tax refund. The employer’s share has been distributed to the employer, but the 23 parties argue that distributing the class members’ share to the class members would not 24 be cost-effective, as approximately $5,000 of the $13,206.93 would be needed for 25 administration costs. As a result, the parties request that the class members’ share of 26 the refund be distributed to a charitable organization, namely, the Pat Tillman 27 Foundation. 28 The parties have not provided enough information for the court to approve their 1 req quest. First while the parties exp t, plain that th tax refun is the res of tax he nd sult 2 ove erpayments from unca s ashed chec cks, they ha not exp ave plained wha became o the funds at of s 3 fro the unca om ashed checks themselves. 4 Second and more important the part d, e tly, ties essenti ially seek a cy pres dis stribution of f 5 the tax refund without ad e d ddressing th relevant legal stand he t dard in this circuit. Un nder Dennis s 6 v. Kellogg Co “[n]ot just any worthy recipient can qualify as an app o., t y propriate cy pres y 7 beneficiary.” 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9t Cir. 2012 Instead, the parties must show that 8 th 2). s 8 ere ving nexus between th plaintiff c he class and th cy pres beneficiarie he es.” Id. the is a “driv 9 The pa arties are di irected to file a supple emental brie addressin these co ef ng oncerns. Sp pecifically, the parties must explai (1) what happened to the proc m in ceeds from the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 uncashed che ecks, and (2 whether there is a d 2) driving nexu between the plaintiff class and us n d 12 the requested cy pres be e d eneficiary. The supple emental brie must not exceed fiv pages, ef t ve 13 and must be filed by Feb f bruary 10, 2016. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: Febru uary 3, 2016 6 __ __________ __________ __________ _______ PH HYLLIS J. H HAMILTON Un nited States District Ju s udge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?