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)

Download PDF
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?