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)
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?