Stewart et al v. Ericsson Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER re proposed preliminary approval order. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/3/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SHERRI STEWART, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

ORDER RE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL ORDER

ERICSSON COMMUNICATION, INC.,
et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

No. C 12-6272 PJH

12
13

Defendants.
_______________________________/
On November 20, 2013, the parties’ motion for preliminary settlement approval came

14

on for hearing before this court. At the hearing, the court identified a number of

15

deficiencies with the parties’ proposed order and notice form, and directed them to re-file a

16

corrected proposed order and notice. On November 27, 2013, the parties filed an

17

amended proposed order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and an amended

18

notice. See Dkt. 34. While the amended documents do remedy some of the deficiencies

19

of the originals, some deficiencies remain. For that reason, the court rejects the amended

20

documents, and directs the parties to file a corrected proposed order and notice form with

21

the following corrections:

22

1.

Paragraph 6 on page 3 of the proposed order states that class counsel “will

23

be paid . . . in the amount of $133,333 for fees,” while paragraph 1(f) on page

24

5 of the order states that “class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs will be paid

25

from the settlement fund in the amount of $100,000.” As an initial matter, the

26

parties should resolve the inconsistency between these two figures; but

27

additionally, the parties should not use the language “will be paid,” as no fee

28

award has yet been approved. Instead, the order should state that class

1
2

counsel “will seek an award of up to” the desired amount.
2.

Paragraph 7 on page 3 of the proposed order states that “Class

3

Representative payments of $10,000 for Plaintiff Stewart and $5,000 for

4

Plaintiff Ighanian [] shall be paid from the Settlement Fund,” but because

5

those payments have not yet been approved, the paragraph should state that

6

the named plaintiffs “will be paid up to” the desired amounts.

7

3.

Page 3 of the notice form (Ex. A to the proposed order) states that class

8

counsel will be paid “up to one-third (1/3) of the gross settlement amount),”

9

but does not include the corresponding dollar amount of the award.
4.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

The proposed order makes no mention of the $8,390 mediator’s fee that will
be paid out of the settlement fund.

5.

Paragraph 1(d) on page 4 of the proposed order states that “Class Settlement

13

Administrative Costs will be paid from the Settlement Fund,” but does not

14

include the amount of those costs.

15

6.

Paragraph 10 on page 6 of the proposed order states that the final approval

16

hearing will take place “at 9:00am in Courtroom 3 of the United States District

17

Court for the Northern District of California,” but does not specify that the

18

hearing will take place in the Oakland Courthouse.

19

The parties are directed to file a corrected proposed order, in accordance with this

20

order, by 3:00pm on December 4, 2013. Assuming this deadline is met, the parties should

21

delete the bracketed and bolded anticipated dates noted in the proposed order.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2