Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00062/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00062-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1 06cv62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPRINKLERFITTERS UNION LOCAL

709, et al., on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv62 BTM (LSP)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

CLASS SETTLEMENT [Doc. #51]

vs.

SIMPLEX GRINNELL, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

On July 3, 2007, the named Plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and each

of the purported class members, and Defendants filed a joint motion for preliminary approval

of a class action settlement, along with a stipulation of final settlement. The Court denied this

motion without prejudice on September 5, 2007 on the grounds that: (1) the Court would not

approve the settlement or make any preliminary determinations regarding the fairness of the

settlement prior to the fairness hearing; and (2) the notification, claim and opt-out procedures

submitted by the parties were not acceptable. In this order, the Court also set forth changes

to the notification, claim and opt-out procedures which must be made before the Court would

grant approval of the class notice procedures. 

On November 21, 2007, the parties filed a renewed joint motion seeking preliminary

approval of the class action settlement despite the Court’s clear indication in its previous

order that it would not preliminarily approve a settlement prior to the fairness hearing. For the

Case 3:06-cv-00062-BTM-LSP Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv62

reasons set forth in the September 5, 2007 order, the parties’ request for preliminary

approval of the settlement is denied. 

The parties also submitted revised notification, claim and opt-out procedures for the

Court’s approval. The Court notes that the parties incorporated most of the changes

ordered by the Court on September 5, 2007. The notice, however, is still deficient as to the

following:

(1) The Notice and the proposed claim form fail to explain how the number of

WORKWEEKs has been calculated and how this calculation determines the payment amount

that a class member can expect. The Notice must inform the class members how much

payment they can expect so that they can make an educated decision on whether to opt out

of the class. For an example of the type of explanation that should be added, see ¶ 9 of the

class notice approved in In re Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. Securities Lit., [Doc. #23 at 15-

17]. 

(2) The Court finds that the proposed Notice § III(C), which describes the process for

objecting to the settlement, is still unclear and confusing. § III(C) refers to objecting class

members filing a “notice of intention to appear” and also makes reference to the need for an

“ Entry of Appearance.” The Notice should be revised to clarify whether a “notice of intention

to appear” and “Entry of Appearance” refer to the same requirement. 

For the reasons set forth above, the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of

the Class Settlement [Doc. #51] is DENIED without prejudice. The parties are invited to file

another renewed motion for approval of the class notice procedures and scheduling of a

settlement fairness hearing that corrects the deficiencies identified herein, at their earliest

convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00062-BTM-LSP Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 3
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 06cv62

Case 3:06-cv-00062-BTM-LSP Document 55 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 3