Mendez v. C-Two Group, Inc.

Filing 110

ORDER re Docket No. 104 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/21/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMIE MADRIGAL MENDEZ,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

Case No. 13-cv-05914-HSG
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 104

C-TWO GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action

13

settlement filed by Plaintiff Jamie Mendez (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. No. 104 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff filed

14

suit against Defendants C-Two Group, Inc. and C&L Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

15

for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). Having

16

carefully considered the motion, the Court finds the following deficiencies.

17

First, while class members will receive notice only via email, the settlement agreement

18

requires class members to opt out of the settlement “by mail.” See Dkt. No. 108, Ex. 1 ¶ 1.15;

19

Dkt. No. 104, Ex. 2 at 5. The Court finds that the following changes to the parties’ proposed

20

method for submitting requests for exclusion are thus required: (1) class members must be

21

provided with a standard opt-out form that is attached to the notice email along with the class

22

notice, which itself should be amended to reflect the inclusion of an opt-out form. The settlement

23

agreement should also reflect any such change. The opt-out form should be substantially identical

24

to the opt-out form previously approved by the Court in this action. See Dkt. No. 97, Ex. A; and

25

(2) any amended notice and settlement agreement should explain the parties’ plan for providing

26

notice to those class members for whom the initial email notice “bounces back” as undeliverable.

27

Second, while Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that he will not seek attorneys’ fees and

28

will only seek costs up to $6,500, see Dkt. No. 108 at 3, the updated settlement agreement does

1

not account for these promises. See Dkt. No. 108, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 8.1, 8.2. Third, the originally filed

2

notice forms were not updated to reflect the change in definition of “settlement certificates,” or the

3

amount of attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiff’s counsel intends to seek. See Dkt. No. 108, Ex. 1 &

4

Ex. 2 ¶¶ 6, 14.

5

Rather than denying Plaintiff’s motion for these reasons, the Court will grant the parties

6

the opportunity to submit an updated settlement agreement and draft notice forms addressing the

7

above concerns by March 24, 2017 at 12:00 p.m., should they choose to do so. The revised

8

documents shall include redlined or highlighted copies clearly identifying any such modifications.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/21/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2