Fernando et al v. eBay, Inc. et al

Filing 169

ORDER TERMINATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. (100 in 4:10-cv-01668-SBA, 135 in 4:10-cv-02500-SBA). Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/28/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MOISES ZEPEDA, and others,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 10-cv-02500 SBA
Case No. 10-cv-01668 SBA

v.
PAYPAL, INC., and others,
Defendants.

14

ORDER TERMINATING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 100

15
16

DEVINDA FERNANDO, and others,
Plaintiffs,

17
v.
18
19

PAYPAL, INC.,
Defendants.

20
21
22

This Court long ago ordered attorney Marina Trubitsky and the plaintiffs in the

23

Fernando action to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to

24

appear at the second day of a Court-ordered settlement conference. Dkt. No. 100. The

25

Court’s order was motivated in part by concern about two potential conflicts: (1) conflicts

26

between the class and class counsel in Fernando and two other cases, Zepeda v. Paypal

27

and Dunkel v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-cv-01452 EJD; and (2) conflicts between Trubitsky and

28

local counsel David Hicks, who attended both days of the conference.
Case Nos. 10-cv-02500 and 10-cv-01668 SBA

1

The Court’s concerns about the first conflict have been ameliorated by subsequent

2

events. In Zepeda, the Court preliminarily approved settlement of class-wide claims. Dkt.

3

No. 281. In Dunkel, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 101.

4

There is no longer the same need to protect the class members in Zepeda and Dunkel.

5

As to any conflict between colleagues Trubitsky and Hicks, that conflict can best be

6

resolved through the pending motions for attorneys’ fees at docket numbers 295, 296 and

7

297 in Zepeda.

8
9

The Court determines that the Order to Show Cause has been satisfied by
Trubitsky’s response. She declared that her failure to appear was due to a family
emergency caused by an illness to two family members. Dkt. Nos. 106, 106-1. The Court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

therefore finds that her failure was not willful or in bad faith. Her failure to appear did put

12

her co-counsel David Hicks into a challenging position and caused expenses to be incurred

13

by defendants and counsel. But under the circumstances, the Court finds that a sanction is

14

not warranted.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: March 28, 2016

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2