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)

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