Luxford et al v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP et al

Filing 44

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/6/2011. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2011)

Luxford et al v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP et al

Doc. 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. 5:09-CV-02809 JF (HRL) ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (JFEX1)

**E-Filed 04/06/11**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA A. LUXFORD and CARLOS H. PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP; ALEGIS GROUP, LLC; and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Defendants.

Case Number 5:09-CV-02809 JF (HRL) ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

The parties move jointly for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, certification of a settlement class, appointment of class counsel and class representatives, preliminary approval of their proposed settlement, and approval of their proposed plan to provide notice to the class. They have provided copies of the proposed First Amended Complaint, the proposed settlement agreement, the proposed plan to provide notice to the class, and a declaration by O. Randolph Bragg in support of his application to be appointed class counsel. As discussed at oral argument, the Court requires the following additional information in order to determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the settlement: (1) A declaration by Plaintiffs' counsel Fred W. Schwinn in support of his application

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

to be appointed class counsel, containing a description of his qualifications, the work he has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in this action, and the resources he intends to commit to representing the class; (2) (3) An explanation of the basis of the proposed incentive awards for the Plaintiffs; An explanation as to why the proposed incentive awards are characterized as

"statutory damages" in the proposed notice; (4) Information with respect to Resurgent's finances that supports the parties'

contention that the proposed $25,000 settlement fund represents approximately 1% of Resurgent's net worth; and (5) An explanation as to why the parties failed to identify in the proposed settlement

agreement the party responsible for paying the costs of class administration.

The matter thereafter shall be submitted without further argument. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 04/06/11 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2
Case No. 5:09-CV-02809 JF (HRL) ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (JFEX1)