Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01429/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01429-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. ESHELMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ORTHOCLEAR HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01429 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING.

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 31, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively denies Plaintiffs’ motion. 

The parties shall each have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

1. If the Court modifies its tentative ruling and grants Plaintiffs’ motion and

requires that some form of corrective notice be issued to putative class members,

do Defendants ask that such a notice also address the email communication from

Plaintiffs attached to the Corrected Fernandez Declaration?

Case 3:07-cv-01429-JSW Document 68 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

a. What is Plaintiffs’ best argument that its communication with putative

class members regarding OrthoClear’s settlement offer is impartial?

2. a. Apart from the package attached as Exhibit A to the Corrected Fernandez

Declaration, what evidence is before the Court that the putative class

members are “being pressured to settle,” as Plaintiffs assert on reply?

b. What evidence is in the record that OrthoClear had not been in

communication with potential class members since October 2006? See

Reply Brief at 7:16-23 (asserting lack of contact).

3. Do Plaintiffs have any authority that if a defendant in a class action extends a

pre-certification settlement offer, it also must advise a putative class member of

the specific legal procedures involved in class actions? If not, why is

OrthoClear’s disclosure of the existence of the class action and suggestion to

putative class members that they may wish to consult counsel not sufficient

information to address that issue? 

4. Given the timing of OrthoClear’s offer in relation to the parties’ stipulations

extending the time by which answers or responsive pleadings would be filed, is it

not reasonable to infer that the September 10 deadline was imposed in an effort

to reduce the number of potential class members? See, e.g., Jenifer v. Delaware

Solid Waste Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2542 at *16 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 1999)

(considering normal timing of proposed changes in tipping fees and shortened

time in defendants’ proposal to determine whether defendants actions were

improper).

5. Plaintiffs assert that the confidential information provided by OrthoClear to the

Plaintiffs is material to evaluating OrthoClear’s settlement offer. Without that

information, how can the Court evaluate whether or not that information would

actually be material to a putative class member’s decision and whether it would

render OrthoClear’s communication misleading?

6. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: August 30, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01429-JSW Document 68 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2