Embry v. ACER America Corporation

Filing 207

AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER; REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge James Ware on 1/31/12. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

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 09-01808 JW

Kevin Embry,

11

AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING
MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED FINAL
APPROVAL ORDER; REQUIRING
SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
ACER America Corp.,
13
Defendant.
14
15

/
Presently before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

16

Settlement. (See Docket Item No. 198.) This Motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 13,

17

2012. Upon review of the parties’ Proposed Order,1 the Court finds that it contains a number of

18

issues which require modification and resolution before the final fairness hearing. Accordingly, on

19

or before February 3, 2012, the parties shall submit a Revised Proposed Order incorporating the

20

following changes:

21

(1) While the Court will consider all of the objections to the settlement, the Court does not

22

find good cause to allow the depositions of Objectors at this time. Further, the Court finds that

23

modification of its prior order denying Objectors’ Motion to Intervene is unnecessary.2

24
25
26

1

(Proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment, hereafter, “Proposed Order,” Docket Item
No. 205.)
2

27
28

(See Docket Item No. 201.) The Court recognizes that there is some question as to
whether the Objectors at issue properly identify themselves as members of the class. The Court
finds, however, that in light of its denial of these Objectors’ Motion to Intervene, this issue does not
warrant further inquiry or modification of its prior Order.

1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that paragraph seven (7) of the Proposed Order be stricken in its

2

entirety.

3

(2) The Court does not find good cause to allow the parties to modify the settlement

4

schedule without the approval of the Court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that paragraph 19 of

5

the Proposed Order be stricken. The parties may replace the existing language with a provision

6

allowing the parties to submit a joint stipulation subject to the approval of the Court to the extent

7

any modification is needed.

8

In addition to the above modifications to the Proposed Order, the Court finds that further

Counsel’s request for fees. On or before February 3, 2012, the parties shall submit the following

11
For the Northern District of California

information will be useful to the Court in evaluating the fairness of the settlement as well as Class

10

United States District Court

9

information to the Court:

12

(1)

13
14

The number of claims received to date that do not contain the required
documentation or are otherwise considered invalid by the parties;

(2)

The total value of the claims received to date.

15
16
17

Dated: January 31, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Adam Gutride [e-mail]
Adam Joseph Bedel [e-mail]
Jeffery David McFarland [e-mail]
Joseph Darrell Palmer [e-mail]
Sam P. Cannata [e-mail]
Seth Adam Safier [e-mail]
Stan Karas [e-mail]
Todd Michael Kennedy [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7

Dated: January 31, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

8
By:
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