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)
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?