Seebrook v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT LETTER BRIEF. Status Report due by 5/30/2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/23/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

GALINA SEEBROOK; MARIA ISABEL
BELTRAN; NICOLLE DISIMONE; and
KRISTEN HARTMAN,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 11-837 CW
ORDER DIRECTING
PARTIES TO FILE A
JOINT LETTER BRIEF

v.
THE CHILDREN’S PLACE RETAIL
STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
On May 14, 2013, Plaintiffs Galina Seebrook, Maria Isabel

12
Beltran, Nicolle DiSimone, Kristen Hartman and Mario Arellano
13
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the revised class
14
action settlement in this case.

Docket No. 65.

The proposed

15
settlement would provide both coupon and injunctive relief to
16
class members.
17
On May 15, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
18
ruling in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS
19
9744, reversing the district court’s grant of final approval to a
20
class action settlement and award of attorneys’ fees for violation
21
of the coupon settlement provision of Class Action Fairness Act
22
(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1712.

The court clarified that, under

23
§ 1712(c), which in part incorporates § 1712(a), the “general
24
rule” is, “If a settlement gives coupon and equitable relief and
25
the district court sets attorneys’ fees based on the value of the
26
entire settlement, and not solely on the basis of injunctive
27
relief, then the district court must use the value of the coupons
28

1

redeemed when determining the value of the coupons part of the

2

settlement.”

3

settlement agreement specifies that no coupons may issue until

4

after entry of a final judgment, it would have been impossible for

5

the district court to calculate the redemption value of the

6

coupons as required by § 1712(a).”

7

Id. at *32.

The court stated, “Because the

Id. at *39.

Under In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, it appears that,

8

unless counsel bases its request for attorneys’ fees solely upon

9

the equitable relief obtained, the Court will be unable to resolve

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

fully the issue of attorneys’ fees until after the redemption

11

period for the coupons has passed.

12

has a similar provision to the one at issue in that case.

13

Stonebarger Decl., Ex. 1 (Settlement Agreement) ¶¶ 1.12, 3.12

14

(providing that Defendant will distribute the merchandise

15

certificates as soon as practicable, but no more than sixty days,

16

after the “Final Settlement Date,” a date that is defined to

17

necessarily take place after the entry of judgment).

18

Settlement Agreement here also appears to allow the Court to

19

approve or change any dates or time periods that it sets forth.

20

Id. at ¶ 5.3.

21

HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, the Court is inclined to consider

22

first the final approval of the settlement agreement but to wait

23

to consider separately the motion for attorneys’ fees until after

24

the coupons have been distributed and the redemption period has

25

passed.

Further, the agreement here
See

However, the

Thus, in order to comply with the dictates of In re

26

The Court also notes that the parties have not changed

27

certain terms of the settlement that the Court expressed concern

28

with at the prior hearing, including that there is no monetary
2

1

recovery given directly to the class, such that the class members

2

must conduct further business with Defendant in order to obtain

3

any benefit; the coupons given cannot be used in conjunction with

4

other discounts or sales, which reduces their value to the class

5

members; and the coupons cannot be used on Defendant’s website, so

6

the class members must travel to Defendant’s stores in order to

7

use them online.

8

inclined to find that, other than the issue under CAFA, the

9

settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair,

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Court is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

adequate and reasonable, such that notice to the Class Members is

11

appropriate, and grant Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

12

approval.

13

The parties shall meet and confer on the CAFA issue.

14

seven days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a

15

joint letter brief responding to this Order.

16

address the issue raised by the Court under In re HP Inkjet

17

Printer Litigation and whether the Court has the authority under

18

the settlement agreement to make the change that it has proposed.

19

They also may explain why that decision is not applicable to the

20

fees motion here or suggest another possible resolution to the

21

issue.

Within

The parties shall

22

The Court notes that, because the ultimate award for

23

attorneys’ fees may be lower than the parties had anticipated

24

during their negotiations due to the subsequent Ninth Circuit

25

opinion, Defendant may be willing to renegotiate the recovery made

26

available to class members to address some of the Court’s concerns

27

about the structure of this settlement.

28

that further negotiation is warranted at this time, in lieu of the
3

If the parties believe

1

joint letter brief addressed above, the parties may file a status

2

report with the Court within seven days of the date of this Order

3

providing proposed deadlines for the additional settlement

4

discussions and for the joint letter brief or a motion for

5

preliminary approval of a further revised settlement agreement.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 5/23/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4