Maxin v. RHG & Company, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER Directing Supplemental Notice to the Class re 12 Ex Parte MOTION To Modify the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court denies the parties joint motion. The Court orders the parties to submit to the Court for its review the supplemental notice on or before 7 days after the electronic docketing of this order. Once the Court receives the notice, the Court will promptly assess its adequacy pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and issue a schedule for notification and further proceedings. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/11/2017. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

HEATHER MAXIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
v.

ORDER DIRECTING
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO THE
CLASS

RHG & COMPANY, INC.,

(ECF No. 12)

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No.: 16CV2625 JLS (BLM)

Defendant.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Ex Parte Application to Modify the

20

Preliminary Approval Order Regarding Plaintiff Heather Maxin’s Deadline to File Motions

21

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; and, Final Approval (“MTN,” ECF No. 12). The parties

22

request modifications to the Court’s preliminary approval order (“Prelim. Approval

23

Order,” ECF No. 11). In that Order, the Court set a schedule for further proceedings. (Id.

24

at 18.) The parties state the Court’s Order does not permit time for the class members to

25

review Plaintiff’s Fee Petition in determining how to respond to the notice. (MTN 2 (citing

26

In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993–95 (9th Cir. 2010).)

27

\\\

28

\\\
1
16CV2625 JLS (BLM)

1

In In re Mercury, the Ninth Circuit held that the “plain text of [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)1]

2

requires that any class member be allowed an opportunity to object to the fee ‘motion’

3

itself, not merely to the preliminary notice that such a motion will be filed.” Id. at 993–94.

4

At the time of preliminary approval, the Court ordered the final day for objections to fall

5

before Class Counsel moved for its attorney’s fees. (Prelim. Approval Order 18.)

6

The Court finds it would be premature to set a schedule for further proceedings, as

7

requested by the parties, until the Court has reviewed the supplemental notice to the class

8

regarding the fee motion. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d); 23(e)(1).) Thus, the Court DENIES

9

the parties’ joint motion. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit to the Court for its

10

review the supplemental notice on or before seven days after the electronic docketing of

11

this Order. Once the Court receives the notice, the Court will promptly assess its adequacy

12

pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and issue a schedule for notification and further proceedings.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1

Rule 23(h) states, in relevant part:

25
26
27
28

(1) A claim for an award must be made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2), subject to the provisions of
this subdivision (h), at a time the court sets. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties and,
for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner.
(2) A class member, or a party from whom payment is sought, may object to the motion.

2
16CV2625 JLS (BLM)