Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02300/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02300-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

ALEXIS BRONSON and CRYSTAL

HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-02300 WHA

ORDER RE (1) MOTION

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; 

AND (2) MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this putative class action under the Song-Beverly Act and Section 17200 of the

California Business and Professions Code, plaintiff Crystal Hardin moves for conditional

certification of a settlement class and for preliminary approval of a class settlement. To the

extent below stated, both motions are GRANTED.

STATEMENT

A prior order detailed the lengthy history of this action (Dkt. No. 209). In brief, plaintiffs

Crystal Hardin and Alexis Bronson each bought Samsung plasma televisions in 2013. Both

television sets had been manufactured in 2013 and later developed colored-lines on the screen. 

In 2018, each plaintiff was separately told by two different Samsung-authorized service and

repair facilities that a spare part was not available to fix their televisions. Defendants Samsung

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 13
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

Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactured plaintiffs’ plasma

televisions. 

Plaintiff Bronson (but not plaintiff Hardin) had commenced this putative class action in

April 2018. He then twice amended his complaint. By January 2019, the operative complaint

contained only two surviving claims: a claim under Section 1793.03(b) of the California Civil

Code and a derivative claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions

Code. More specifically, Section 1793.03(b) required “[e]very manufacturer making an express

warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance product” to “make available to service and

repair facilities sufficient service literature and functional parts to effect the repair of a product

for at least seven years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of

whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.” An order also then

permitted plaintiff Hardin to intervene.

In April 2019, Samsung moved for summary judgment. In May 2019, plaintiff Bronson

(but not plaintiff Hardin) moved for partial summary judgment. An order denied Samsung’s

summary judgment motion. An order granted plaintiff Bronson’s partial summary judgment

motion. Samsung had not made functional parts available to service and repair facilities for

plaintiff Bronson’s television as required by Section 1793.03(b). 

An order also permitted the scope of discovery to extend to television models other than

those owned by the plaintiffs. More specifically, the order permitted discovery for “plasma

television models purchased in 2013 and 2014 which contain[ed] the identical [faulty] part as

plaintiffs’ specific plasma televisions” (Dkt. No. 155 at 3) (emphasis in original). Thus, as

relevant for the instant motion, since the television model plaintiff Hardin owned contained the

identical faulty part (part number BN96-25240A), as two other models of television (models

PN51F5300 and PN51F5350) — discovery extended as to those models as well. Plaintiff

Hardin’s model was numbered PN51F5500.

Since May 2019, the parties have engaged in multiple settlement discussions. In June

2019, plaintiff Hardin (but not plaintiff Bronson) moved for class certification. In August 2019,

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 2 of 13
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

3

after the motion was fully briefed, the parties struck an agreement on a settlement “injunctive”

class. An order held the motion for class certification in abeyance.

In September 2019, plaintiff moved for certification of the settlement class and for

preliminary approval of class settlement (Dkt. No. 203). Samsung did not oppose. 

In brief, the details of this September proposed settlement agreement are as follows. 

Counsel abandon certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), in favor of an injunctiveonly class under Rule 23(b)(2). That is, although the operative complaint sought class damages,

the class would receive zero dollars under the deal. In contrast, plaintiff Bronson and plaintiff

Hardin would each receive $6,000 — and plaintiffs’ counsel would seek $487,000 in fees,

subject to Court approval.

The September settlement also drastically narrows the scope of the class. The class for

settlement purposes became (Dkt. No. 204 ¶ I.A.): 

Any person in the State of California who owned as of July

1, 2019, a Samsung plasma television model PN51F5500,

PN51F5300, or PN51F5350 manufactured since January 1,

2013 (“Affected Models”), that exhibits a “line” issue that

requires a replacement plasma display panel assembly

(“PDP”) as confirmed through diagnostic testing by [a

Samsung]-authorized service center (“ASC”).

In other words, compared to the class alleged in the amended complaint, this new class definition

excludes both putative class members who owned televisions from 2009 until 2013 and putative

class members who no longer own televisions as of July 2019. In addition, the new class limits

the type of television to three models (the prior class had included every plasma television

model). The new class definition also imposes a brand new requirement: all televisions must

have undergone diagnostic testing by an authorized repair center.

The September settlement, moreover, did not expressly release absent class members’

claims for damages, but those damages claims were not expressly reserved. Instead, the

agreement merely noted that it was an injunctive-only class and “requires no release of any

monetary remedies by any member of the [s]ettlement [c]lass” (id. ¶ IV.A.). 

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 3 of 13
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

4

Significantly, the September agreement explicitly prohibits any form of notice to the

class. That is, “Samsung considers the absence of notice to the [s]ettlement [c]lass a nonseverable material term” (id. ¶ IV.B). 

After a hearing, an order denied the September settlement as unfair, unreasonable, and

inadequate (Dkt. No. 209). Primarily, the studied refusal to give notice killed the settlement. 

Even though damages claims would theoretically survive, absent class members would not be

advised notice that they needed to bring their own claims for damages (either on an individual

basis or a new class basis). During the pendency of the litigation, all statute of limitations were

tolled. But the tolling would only be of value if the class members learned that class counsel had

left them to fend for themselves.

Another deal-breaker was the procedure imposed on objectors. The procedure was

unreasonable, an unreasonableness compounded by the lack of notice to the objectors to even

notify them of the onerous requirements.

The parties try again with a new settlement, referred to herein as the October settlement. 

It purports to have fixed the glaring unfairness of the September settlement. 

This October settlement redefines the proposed class. The new class definition is as

follows (Dkt. No. 214-4 ¶ I.A.):

Any person in the State of California who owns a Samsung

plasma television model PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or

PN51F5350 (“Affected Models”), that exhibits a “line”

issue that requires a replacement plasma display panel

assembly (“PDP”).

In other words, the new October definition removes three prior proposed class limits from the

September definition. First, the television no longer is required to have been owned by 

July 1, 2019. Second, the television no longer is required to have been manufactured since

January 1, 2013. Third, the television no longer is required to have undergone diagnostic testing

by an authorized repair center. Instead of requiring the class member to lug in the television for

a diagnostic repair at the authorized service center, the settlement class member now “must

contact” an authorized service center to determine if there is a “line” issue, and the center would

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 4 of 13
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

5

then “direct the [s]ettlement [c]lass [m]ember to contact [Samsung] directly” for the plasma

display assembly part to fix the television’s “line” issue (id. ¶ II.A.3.). 

The October deal further agrees to provide notice and to significantly narrow the

objection procedures. More specifically as to notice, the October settlement agreement provides

that the parties will publish a quarter page notice in three separate publications: (i) in one

California edition of Parade Magazine; (ii) in one weekday edition of the San Francisco

Chronicle; and (iii) in one weekday edition of the Wall Street Journal’s California regional

publications. In addition, a settlement website will now provide a longer form of notice, among

other documents. The website would be available to the public until November 30, 2021 (id. ¶¶

IV.A.; IV.B.).

The October settlement makes three other changes worth mentioning. First, reference to

plaintiff Bronson has disappeared from the agreement completely. So, his previously disclosed

$6,000 award is no longer part of the class-settlement agreement. 

Second, the agreement now explicitly provides that the settlement class members do not

release any claims “for money damages, injunctive or equitable relief, or other form of relief”

(id. ¶ III.B.). In other words, no future form of relief — including injunctive relief — would be

released by this deal. 

Third, Samsung now retains sole discretion to make the replacement part available for

purchase by the class member, but if Samsung declines to provide the part, the class member

could then choose between exchanging the television or receiving a refund (id. ¶ II.A.2.). This

presents a change from the September settlement in that Samsung had previously retained sole

discretion as to the form of all relief, including whether the class member would be eligible to

purchase a replacement part or receive an exchange or a refund (Dkt. No. 204 ¶ II.A.2.).

At the hearing on the October settlement, both Samsung and plaintiffs’ counsel explained

the reason why the October settlement was structured in this way. Only one plasma panel

remains. So, this structure will enable Samsung to keep the lone remaining panel “available” to

authorized service and repair centers, in attempted compliance with Section 1793.03(b). But

then Samsung will exercise its discretion to decline to sell the part, thereby giving the consumer

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 5 of 13
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

6

the choice as to whether they will exchange the television or seek a refund (Dkt. No. 221 at

5:15–18).

This explanation, however, was not described anywhere in the agreement or in the

notices. This deficiency was eventually fixed. Specifically, both notices now provide that

“Samsung intends to exercise its discretion so that class members will be able to exercise this

choice of receiving either an exchange or refund” (Dkt. Nos. 229-2 at 2; 229-3 at 4). 

In addition, at the hearing on the October settlement, the undersigned informed the

parties that the notices were not sufficiently clear, and directed the parties to make certain

changes, including adding the following paragraph to both notices: 

Under the settlement, the named plaintiff will receive

$6,000 and counsel will ask for $487,000 in fees. Another

named plaintiff herein also received $6,000 in settling these

same claims. You, however, will receive no cash but your

claims for damages will not be released. This means that

even though you will receive no money under this deal, you

are free to bring your own claim on your own against

Samsung, or, on behalf of the class or if someone else

possibly brings a new class claim, to participate in that

class action. From the date of the original lawsuit (April

17, 2018) until the date of this notice, the statute of

limitations has been suspended. Now, however, the statute

of limitations period will begin to run again. Thus, if you’d

like to bring your own lawsuit, you must do so before the

statute of limitations runs on your claim (assuming it is not

already barred). You will, however, be the beneficiary of

aspects of the settlement agreement, namely authorized

repair facilities will make the part to fix your plasma

television available to you for purchase. The Court has not

given final approval to this settlement. If you want to

object, you may do so provided you follow the procedures

stated elsewhere in this notice. The Court will decide

whether to give final approval on ________, 2019 and

would appreciate your views.

The parties revised and re-submitted the October settlement agreement and the notices, to

comply with this direction.

This new October settlement agreement is referred to herein as the revised October

Settlement. The revised October settlement makes three noteworthy revisions. First, plaintiffs’

counsel will file annual statements by October 15 of every year until the injunctive relief period

runs (November 30, 2021). These annual statement will state the number of settlement class

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 6 of 13
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

7

members who have received “some form of relief under” the settlement in the prior year. 

Samsung will cooperate in preparing these statements (Dkt. No. 226-2 ¶ II.A.6.). 

Second, plaintiffs’ counsel will provide the preliminary approval order, the settlement

agreement, and both forms of notices to a third-party website that regularly provides information

to the public on class actions and class action settlements. Plaintiffs’ counsel will direct the

third-party website to provide a link to the settlement website within sixty days of the

preliminary approval date (id. ¶ IV.D.). 

Third, the short-form notice will be published within forty-five days of the preliminary

approval order. The long-form notice will be published within fifteen days of preliminary

approval (id. ¶¶ IV.A; IV.B.).

To summarize, in August 2019, an order held the fully-briefed litigation classcertification order in abeyance. Plaintiff Hardin moved for preliminary approval of a classsettlement in September 2019. An order denied preliminary approval. In October 2019, plaintiff

Hardin moved for preliminary approval of a new settlement. After a hearing, this October

settlement was further revised. The parties also made Court-directed changes to the notices. 

This order now follows.

ANALYSIS

1. CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS.

A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate compliance with Rule

23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Pursuant to Rule 23(a), for a

named plaintiff to obtain class certification, a court must find: (1) numerosity of the class; (2)

that common questions of law or fact predominate; (3) that the named plaintiff’s claims and

defenses are typical; and (4) that the named plaintiff can adequately protect the interests of the

class. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class comprised of all California owners of Samsung plasma

television models PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or PN51F5350, which exhibit colored-lines on the

screen, requiring a replacement plasma display panel assembly part.

In addition, in the instant action, plaintiff seeks to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). In

turn, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires that the court find that the defendant “has acted

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 7 of 13
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

8

or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” This order holds

that all the elements under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) have been satisfied here for purposes of

settlement, provided class members receive adequate notice. The details follow.

A. Numerosity.

The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied when joinder of individual

plaintiffs would be impracticable. Here, the numerosity requirement would ordinarily be a

problem, given that there could be fewer than forty class members. One purpose, however, of

the numerosity requirement is to assure that the class device will be efficient before we

extinguish class members’ claims. Because the release here will allow the class members’

claims to survive, class members will be little or no worse off than before the action began,

provided they get adequate notice.

Truth be told, this deal seems mainly like a way for plaintiffs’ counsel to end their toil

and to walk away with cash for their effort. Since class members will now get notice and one of

them might step forward to pick up the fallen banner by suing anew, they will be no worse off

than if the plaintiff and counsel simply had dismissed the case (with notice to class members). 

The purpose of all the requirements of Rule 23(a) is to protect absent class members, to repeat,

by avoiding unfair compromises of their claims. There will be no compromise of absent class

members’ claims. There will be no prejudice so long as adequate notice is given.

B. Commonality and Typicality.

A class has sufficient commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) if “there are questions of fact and

law which are common to the class.” “The existence of shared legal issues with divergent

factual predicates is sufficient” to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2). Hanlon v. Chrysler

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied

when “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of

the class.” A plaintiff’s claims are typical if they “are reasonably co-extensive with those of

absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Id. at 1020. 

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 8 of 13
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

9

Here, plaintiff’s claims stem from Samsung’s alleged failure to make plasma display

assembly number BN96-25240A available to authorized service and repair facilities,

contravening Section 1793.03(b). Plaintiff, like every other member of the proposed class, owns

a plasma television afflicted by colored-lines, which can only be fixed by plasma display

assembly number BN96-25240A. In other words, plaintiff shares the same legal issue, on

substantially the same facts, with the class, namely the lack of availability of this specific

television part. The commonality and typicality requirements are accordingly satisfied.

C. Adequacy.

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class.” Determining whether the representative parties will do so involves

two inquiries: (1) do the named plaintiff and his counsel have any conflicts of interest with other

class members, and (2) will the named plaintiff and his counsel act vigorously on behalf of the

class. See Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Accordingly, “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and

suffer the same injury as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez,

431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff Hardin remained involved in this litigation. She sat for a deposition and made

her television available for inspection by Samsung. That plaintiff Hardin has now abandoned

class-wide damages does not on its own render her inadequate to serve as a class representative.

Plaintiffs’ counsel have pursued relief on behalf of the class through the instant litigation,

which included two separate summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs’ counsel also have

experience in class action litigation (Dkt. Nos. 186-1 ¶¶ 3–4; 186-2 ¶ 4). Why counsel, however,

abandoned the class with respect to their damages claims is a mystery, but at least the class will

have their damages claims preserved. Why counsel went along with no notice to the class gives

this whole deal a curious smell, but, thanks to judicial oversight, the notice problem has been

fixed. This is not counsel’s finest hour. 

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 9 of 13
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

10

D. Rule 23(b)(2) And General Applicability.

Plaintiff seeks to certify the settlement class under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the

party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,

so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the

class as a whole.” “These requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative

class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally

applicable to the class as a whole.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 688 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1125 (9th Cir. 2010)). Such is the case here. 

This action seeks injunctive relief and the proposed settlement agreement would provide

for uniform class-wide relief which includes Samsung’s agreement to: (i) maintain plasma

display assembly number BN96-25240A in-stock on the relevant Samsung database until

November 30, 2021; (ii) provide either the replacement part, a refund, or an exchange; and 

(iii) directly communicate once with authorized service centers in California that any consumer

requiring a replacement part for a television model which uses plasma display assembly number

BN96-25240A, shall be directed to contact Samsung for a replacement part/refund/exchange

(Dkt. No. 229-2 at 1). In turn, Samsung will uniformly decline to exercise its discretion so that

the consumer will be given the choice to receive a refund or to exchange their television. This

injunctive relief applies to the class as a whole.

In all, the Rule 23 elements are met here, provided adequate notice is given.

2. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. 

Rule 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class . . . may be

settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Preliminary approval is appropriate if “the proposed

settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no

obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or

segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust

Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Chief Judge Vaughn Walker) (citations and

internal quotations omitted). The proposed settlement provides sufficient benefit to class

members, considering none of the class claims will be released. That is, class members will be

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 10 of 13
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

11

able to receive an exchange or refund for their broken television, Samsung will update its

internal website to show its authorized service and repair facilities that the faulty part is

available, and authorized service centers will also be contacted to ensure they will be informed

of the parts’ availability. 

This motion also follows depositions of plaintiff Hardin and Samsung corporate

representatives, the parties’ exchange of written discovery, two motions for summary judgment,

and full briefing on a motion for class certification. Continuing forward in litigation would

impose risks and costs on plaintiff. It would also delay the implementation of the parties’

agreed-upon remedies. 

The agreement does impose obligations on the class members. More specifically, class

members “must contact” authorized service centers “to confirm” that the television exhibits a

“line” issue which requires the required part, and if directed by Samsung, class members must

return the broken television at issue (at Samsung’s expense) (Dkt. No. 214-4 ¶ II.A.3.). These

obligations do not create an obvious deficiency. For these reasons, the settlement itself falls

within the range of possible approval. 

Turning to the notice, the revised October settlement provides that the parties will

publish a quarter page notice in three separate publications: (i) in one California edition of

Parade Magazine; (ii) in one weekday edition of the San Francisco Chronicle; and (iii) in one

weekday edition of the Wall Street Journal’s California regional publications. In addition, a

settlement website will now provide a longer form of notice. The website would be available to

the public until November 30, 2021 (Dkt. No. 226-2 ¶¶ IV.A–D.). 

Two typos must be fixed in the short-form notice. First, the short-form notice incorrectly

directs class members to Courtroom 11 for the final hearing (Dkt. No. 229-2 at 3). This should

be changed to Courtroom 12. Second, the short-form notice does not provide the same class

definition as the long-form notice. Specifically, the long-form notice includes California

“residency” within the class definition. The short-form notice includes only people “in”

California. This order will certify a class consistent with the version in the long-form notice. 

The short-form notice should be changed to reflect the certified class. 

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 11 of 13
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

12

The proposed class notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), as

it clearly describes the nature of the action, the injunctive relief called for in the settlement

agreement, and the implications of and process for objecting to the settlement and participating

in the fairness hearing. 

CONCLUSION

To the following extent, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for settlement purposes

is GRANTED. The prior motion for class certification for litigation purposes is DENIED AS

MOOT. The following class is CERTIFIED for purposes of settlement: Any resident of the State

of California who owns a Samsung plasma television model PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or

PN51F5350 (“Affected Models”), that exhibits a “line” issue that requires a replacement plasma

display panel assembly (“PDP”). Plaintiff Crystal Hardin is hereby APPOINTED as class

representative. Plaintiffs’ counsel Paul Rothstein and Kyla Alexander are hereby APPOINTED as

class counsel.

The terms of the parties’ settlement agreement are hereby PRELIMINARILY APPROVED as

being fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the class, subject to further consideration

at the final approval hearing. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is

GRANTED. Both proposed forms of notice for the class are APPROVED. 

The final short-form of notice which fixes the two typos identified herein shall be filed on

the docket by NOVEMBER 4. By NOVEMBER 7, counsel shall provide this preliminary approval

order, the revised October settlement, and both forms of notice to a third-party website that

regularly provides information to the public on class actions and class action settlements. 

Consistent with the revised October settlement, the long-form notice should be published on the

settlement website by NOVEMBER 15. The short-form notice should be published no later than

DECEMBER 16. By DECEMBER 19, plaintiff shall file her motion for attorney’s fees and costs,

which must also be published on the settlement website.

The deadline for filing objections to the settlement is JANUARY 31, 2020. The parties

shall respond to any objections to the settlement by FEBRUARY 13, 2020. By this same date, the

parties shall file a motion for final approval of the class settlement. A hearing to consider

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 12 of 13
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

13

whether the class settlement should be given final approval, and to consider plaintiff’s motion

for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, is SET for FEBRUARY 27, 2020 AT 11:00 A.M. The

final pretrial conference and trial dates are hereby VACATED and will be reset if final approval is

not granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA Document 230 Filed 11/01/19 Page 13 of 13