Miletak et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 375

ORDER requiring revised proposed order. Signed by Judge James Ware on February 28, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NO. C 06-03778 JW Vlaho Miletak, 11 ORDER REQUIRING REVISED PROPOSED ORDER Plaintiff, v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Allstate Ins. Co., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 / Presently before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 16 Settlement.1 The Motion is scheduled for a hearing on March 5, 2012. Upon review of the Motion 17 and the associated Proposed Order,2 the Court finds that the following revisions are necessary: 18 (1) The Court sets June 18, 2012 at 9 a.m. for a Final Fairness Hearing in this matter. 19 Accordingly, the parties shall file a Revised Proposed Order that: (a) states that the 20 Final Fairness Hearing will be held on that date, and (b) sets forth the actual date of 21 all other deadlines that are calculated pursuant to the date of the Final Fairness 22 Hearing.3 23 1 24 25 (Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Directing Dissemination of Notice to the Class; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 369.) 2 26 27 ([Proposed] Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Directing Dissemination of Notice, hereafter, “Proposed Order,” Docket Item No. 371.) 3 28 (See, e.g., Proposed Order ¶ 8 (stating that an attorney fee application may be made “[n]ot later than thirty-five (35) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing”).) 1 (2) The Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement fund “not to exceed 2 $ 2,727,555,”4 out of which Class Members will be paid. However, the Motion, 3 Settlement Agreement and Proposed Order are silent as to what will happen to any 4 portion of the $ 2,727,555 settlement fund that goes unclaimed. Accordingly, in their 5 Revised Proposed Order, the parties shall address the issue of what will happen to 6 any unclaimed portion of the $ 2,727,555 settlement fund. In particular, the parties 7 shall include language providing: (a) for a cy pres distribution of the unclaimed 8 portion of the settlement fund; and (b) that the parties shall nominate recipients of 9 such a cy pres distribution, subject to the Court’s approval. To the extent that the parties do not believe this requirement is consistent with the terms of the settlement, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the parties shall file a separate Statement articulating those reasons. 12 (3) The Proposed Order includes a proposed Claim Form which requires Class Members 13 to confirm the truth of the statement “I paid the ‘pay in full’ amount on one or more 14 Allstate Due Date Renewal Bill(s) by the ‘due date’ on the bill.”5 However, the 15 Court finds that this requirement is inappropriate, inasmuch as Defendants–rather 16 than Class Members–are in possession of information as to the precise dates on which 17 any individual Class Member paid their bills. Thus, the Court finds that a more 18 appropriate Claim Form would: (a) apprise Class Members that they are in the Class, 19 pursuant to Allstate’s records; and (b) simply require Class Members to check a box 20 indicating that they wish to be in the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the parties’ 21 Revised Proposed Order shall include a Claim Form containing such language. To 22 the extent that the parties do not believe that the Court’s proposed modification is 23 appropriate, the parties shall file a separate Statement articulating those reasons. 24 25 26 4 (Stipulation and Settlement Agreement at 6, Docket Item No. 370.) 27 5 (See Proposed Order, Ex. B, Claim Form.) 28 2 1 On or before March 1, 2012 at 3 p.m., the parties shall either file: (1) a Revised Proposed 2 Order pursuant to the terms of this Order, or (2) a Revised Proposed Order reflecting the date of the 3 Final Fairness Hearing, along with a Statement addressing those of the Court’s recommended 4 modifications that the parties believe are not appropriate. The parties should be prepared to address 5 these issues at the hearing. 6 7 8 Dated: February 28, 2012 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Bonnie Lau bonnie.lau@snrdenton.com Gayle M. Athanacio gayle.athanacio@snrdenton.com Hillary Noll Kalay hkalay@sonnenschein.com Mark Paul Millen MPMillen@aol.com Mark Paul Millen MPMillen@aol.com Samuel Kornhauser skornhauser@earthlink.net Sanford Kingsley sanford.kingsley@snrdenton.com 3 4 5 6 Dated: February 28, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/ JW Chambers Susan Imbriani Courtroom Deputy

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?