Maxine Derry et al v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company
Filing
147
ORDER RE: REVISED PROPOSED NOTICE AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/5/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Class Notice)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
MAXINE DERRY; and RUSSELL HEMEN,
individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others
similarly situated,
v.
9
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER RE: REVISED
PROPOSED NOTICE
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
7
8
No. C 12-1380 CW
Defendant.
11
________________________________/
12
On August 1, 2013, the Court conducted a hearing on
13
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
14
action settlement.
15
concerns about Plaintiffs’ proposed class notice and proposed
16
order preliminarily approving the settlement.
17
the parties to meet and confer about changes to the proposed class
18
notice and proposed order and to negotiate any necessary changes
19
to the settlement agreement.
20
ordered the parties to submit the revised documents within seven
21
days or, if the parties were unable to agree, to submit individual
22
versions.
23
At the hearing the Court raised certain
The Court directed
On October 7, 2013, the Court
In response to the October 7, 2013 order, Plaintiffs filed a
24
brief indicating that the parties “have reached an impasse as to
25
the production of the necessary information by Defendant . . . to
26
prepare a settlement valuation.”
27
further stated that they were “not able to agree upon or submit a
28
revised proposed class notice and proposed order prior to valuing
Docket No. 142.
Plaintiffs
1
the settlement.”
2
that (1) the parties were not a true impasse with respect to the
3
production of information related to the settlement valuation and
4
(2) the parties need not resolve that issue prior to submitting
5
the revised documents.
6
class notice and proposed order addressing the concerns discussed
7
at the preliminary approval hearing.
Id.
Defendant filed a brief stating its belief
Defendant submitted a revised proposed
On October 18, 2013, the Court issued an order directing
9
Plaintiffs to inform the Court whether they agreed to the proposed
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
class notice and proposed order preliminarily approving the class
11
action settlement filed by Defendant.
12
parties to meet and confer regarding the data necessary for the
13
valuation of the class action settlement and to consult with the
14
mediator on the issue.
15
if necessary, they could file a discovery motion.
16
The Court also directed the
The Court further advised Plaintiffs that,
Plaintiffs have now filed a response, with additional changes
17
to both the class notice and the proposed order.
18
filed a further response objecting to some of Plaintiffs’ changes.
19
Defendant objects to (1) Plaintiffs’ insertion of a cy pres
20
provision in the proposed preliminary approval order and
21
(2) Plaintiffs’ insertion of a statement in section 5 of the class
22
notice advising class members who have not previously surrendered
23
their policies to “immediately compare their current policy cash
24
accumulation value and surrender value to carefully consider
25
whether to surrender their Jackson policy as a result of the 22%
26
reduction of the surrender charge.”
27
28
Defendant has
The Court agrees that the insertion of the cy pres provision
represents a change to the terms of the settlement that is not
2
1
permitted under the terms of the settlement agreement without
2
agreement from both parties and approval of the Court.
3
Settlement Agreement ¶ 16.
4
does not give the Court authority to modify the form of the class
5
notice absent agreement from both parties.
6
Agreement ¶ 10.
7
Defendant’s changes and Plaintiffs’ changes to which Defendant did
8
not object.
9
parties shall inform the Court whether they agree to this class
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
See
Moreover, the settlement agreement
See Settlement
Attached is a class notice incorporating
Within one week of the date of this order, the
notice.
The Court will delay the preliminary approval of the class
12
action settlement and issuance of the class notice until the
13
parties have resolved the discovery dispute regarding the
14
information Plaintiffs seek to conduct the valuation of the
15
settlement.
16
agreed-upon proposed order, the Court will enter the proposed
17
order submitted by Defendant.
18
information regarding the status of the dispute regarding the
19
information necessary for the valuation of the settlement.
20
one week of the date of this order, the parties shall submit a
21
status report, describing their efforts to resolve the issue to
22
date and the remaining disputes, if any.
23
filing of the status report, the issue is not fully resolved, the
24
parties shall schedule a telephone conference with Justice Trotter
25
or Plaintiffs shall file a discovery motion, or both.
26
telephone conference must be scheduled or the discovery motion
27
filed, or both, by November 20, 2013.
At that time, unless the parties submit a different,
Neither party has provided further
28
3
Within
If, at the time of the
The
1
The parties are reminded of their duty to attempt to resolve
2
issues related to discovery and the settlement prior to raising
3
them with the Court.
4
unless the parties present evidence that senior attorneys for both
5
sides have met and conferred in person to attempt to resolve the
6
issues.
7
The Court will not consider further disputes
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dated: 11/5/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?