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)

Download PDF
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

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?