Embry v. ACER America Corporation

Filing 182

ORDER requesting further revised proposed order. Signed by Judge James Ware on September 9, 2011. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

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 09-01808 JW Kevin Embry, 11 ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER REVISED PROPOSED ORDER FOR JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Plaintiff, v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 ACER America Corp., 13 Defendant. 14 15 / On September 7, 2011, the Court ordered the parties in this case to file a revised Proposed 16 Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement “which shall include the name of the 17 settlement administrator,” as the Court found that the parties had failed to propose a settlement claim 18 administrator in their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and its 19 supporting papers. (See Docket Item No. 178.) On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 20 Supplemental Memorandum contending that the Settlement Agreement provides that “Claim 21 Administrator” means “Defendant or a qualified third-party,” and that the parties “have 22 subsequently confirmed that [Defendant] itself will be acting as Claim Administrator.”1 On 23 September 8, 2011, the parties also filed a Revised Proposed Order. (hereafter, “Revised Proposed 24 25 26 1 27 28 (Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement at 1, Docket Item No. 179.) The parties contend that Defendant is “well-placed to serve as claim administrator,” as it has done so in a prior “federal class action settlement.” (Id.) 1 Order,” Docket Item No. 180.) The Revised Proposed Order does not provide a date for the Final 2 Fairness Hearing.2 3 Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not a suitable claim administrator because 4 there is a potential conflict of interest. Accordingly, on or before September 12, 2011, at 8 a.m., 5 the parties shall file a further revised Proposed Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 6 Settlement which shall include the name of a qualified third-party claim administrator.3 The revised 7 Proposed Order shall also provide a date for the Final Fairness Hearing which comports with the 8 Court’s calendar, as well as other proposed dates which shall allow sufficient time, inter alia, for 9 class members to exclude themselves from the settlement class or object to the settlement and any proposed attorney fees. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 To the extent that the parties are unable to obtain a third-party claim administrator by 12 September 12, 2011, the parties may file a Stipulation to continue the hearing on Preliminary 13 Approval to September 19, 2011, so as to provide the parties with sufficient time to file a Revised 14 Proposed Order consistent with the terms of this Order. 15 16 17 Dated: September 9, 2011 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 25 26 27 28 However, it states that a “Final Approval Hearing” shall be held “at least seventy-five (75) days after the emailing of the Class Notice.” (Revised Proposed Order at 2.) 3 In light of the fact that the hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is scheduled for September 12, 2011 at 9 a.m., it is imperative that the revised Proposed Order be filed by this deadline. 2 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Adam Gutride adam@gutridesafier.com Adam Joseph Bedel ajbedel@quinnemanuel.com Jeffery David McFarland jdm@quinnemanuel.com Seth Adam Safier seth@gutridesafier.com Stan Karas stankaras@quinnemanuel.com Todd Michael Kennedy todd@gutridesafier.com 3 4 5 6 Dated: September 9, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 7 By: 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 /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?