Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0401 Labor Management Disclosure Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GLASS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-4068 MMC

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO

STRIKE D’ARIA MEMORANDUM FILED

IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER

RE: LAWRENCE R. KAUFMANN’S

WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTIONS TO

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;

(2) GRANTING APPROVAL OF

LAWRENCE R. KAUFMANN’S

WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTIONS TO

SETTLEMENT

(Docket Nos. 106, 121)

On November 15, 2006, the Court received, from an attorney representing proposed

intervenor Lawrence R. Kaufmann (“Kaufmann”), a letter dated November 13, 2006, along

with Kaufmann’s declaration, by which documents Kaufmann sought to withdraw his motion

to intervene in the instant action. By order issued November 16, 2006, the Court deemed

the motion to intervene withdrawn, but noted that the motion also contained objections to

the proposed class action settlement and that such objections “may be withdrawn only with

the court’s approval.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4)(B). In its November 16, 2006 order, the

Court afforded “the parties” the opportunity to brief the issue of whether the Court should

approve Kaufmann’s withdrawal of his objections to the proposed settlement. (See Order

re: Lawrence R. Kaufmann’s Withdrawal of Motion to Intervene and Objection to

Settlement, filed Nov. 16, 2006, at 1.)

On December 1, 2006, plaintiffs and defendants, respectively, filed separate

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 219 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Plaintiffs have not filed a reply.

2

 Indeed, rather than file an objection, D’Aria submitted a consent form authorizing

plaintiffs’ counsel to act on his behalf, as well as a claim form, by which D’Aria sought to

participate in the proposed settlement. (See Wilcox Reply Decl. Exs. A and B.)

2

responses to the Court’s November 16, 2006 order, arguing, in each instance, that the

Court should permit Kaufmann to withdraw his objections. Also on that date, Kaufmann’s

former counsel of record filed a memorandum on behalf of class member Anthony D’Aria

(“D’Aria”) along with an accompanying declaration from counsel (collectively, “D’Aria

memorandum”), arguing that the Court should not permit Kaufmann to withdraw his

objections.

On December 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the D’Aria memorandum. On

December 11, 2006, defendants filed a separate motion to strike the D’Aria memorandum. 

On December 29, 2006, D’Aria filed a consolidated opposition to the motions to strike, and,

on January 5, 2007, UBS filed a reply.1

The Court will GRANT the motions to strike the D’Aria memorandum, for two

reasons. First, D’Aria, as a member of the class, is represented by plaintiffs’ counsel; when

the Court sought the parties’ comments on the propriety of permitting Kaufmann to

withdraw his objections, the Court did not invite the filing of individual briefs by members of

the class. Second, D’Aria did not submit a timely objection to the proposed settlement2

and, by the instant memorandum, is expressly endeavoring to adopt Kaufmann’s objections

as his own; the Court has already denied D’Aria’s request for such relief. (See Order

Denying Anthony D’Aria’s Motion to Join or be Substituted for Lawrence R. Kaufmann, filed

Nov. 16, 2006, at 2.) 

Turning to the issue of whether Kaufmann’s withdrawal of his objections to the

proposed settlement should be approved, the Court first finds, contrary to the arguments of

both plaintiffs and defendants, Kaufmann’s objections were timely. Although Kaufmann did

not separately file his objections in the format set forth in the Class Notice, he substantially

complied with the Class Notice by submitting those objections in his motion to intervene,

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 219 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 There is no admissible evidence to support D’Aria’s contention that UBS first

approached Kaufmann to induce him to withdraw. Rather, the evidence is to the contrary. 

(See id.; see also Notice of Lawrence R. Kauffman’s Withdrawn Objection to Proposed

Settlement Ex. C (Browne Decl.), filed Nov. 14, 2006, ¶¶ 2-6.) The Court sustains

defendants’ objection to the hearsay declaration of Kenneth Lehn, filed December 15,

2006, in support of D’Aria’s motion to intervene.

3

which was filed prior to the deadline for objecting to the settlement. As Rule 23(e)(4)(B)

does not limit its applicability to objections made only in a particular format, the Court finds

said Rule is applicable to Kaufmann’s request to withdraw.

As noted, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4)(B), a class member’s objection to a proposed

settlement “may be withdrawn only with the court’s approval.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(e)(4)(B). The Rule itself does not set forth the circumstances under which such

approval may be given, nor is there any controlling authority on the issue. The Advisory

Committee Notes, however, provide the following guidance:

Subdivision (e)(4)(B) requires court approval for withdrawal of objections

made under subdivision (e)(4)(A). Review follows automatically if the

objections are withdrawn on terms that lead to modification of the settlement

with the class. Review also is required if the objector formally withdraws the

objections. If the objector simply abandons pursuit of the objection, the court

may inquire into the circumstances.

Approval under paragraph (4)(B) may be given or denied with little need for

further inquiry if the objection and the disposition go only to a protest that the

individual treatment afforded the objector under the proposed settlement is

unfair because of factors that distinguish the objector from other class

members. Different considerations may apply if the objector has protested

that the proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate on grounds

that apply generally to a class or subclass. Such objections, which purport to

represent class-wide interests, may augment the opportunity for obstruction

or delay. If such objections are surrendered on terms that do not affect the

class settlement or the objector's participation in the class settlement, the

court often can approve withdrawal of the objections without elaborate inquiry.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Advisory Committee Notes, 2003 Amendments. 

Here, Kaufmann’s objections were made on grounds that apply generally to the

class. Although those objections were withdrawn on terms that did not directly affect the

terms of the class settlement or Kaufmann’s participation therein, Kaufmann did obtain a

personal benefit, forgiveness of a loan, in exchange for withdrawing. (See Kaufmann Decl.,

filed Nov. 15, 2006, ¶¶ 2-4.)3

 Nevertheless, Kaufmann is not the sole objector, and the

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 219 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Court has before it, as submitted by other class members and, as amicus, by the Attorney

General of the State of New York, largely the same arguments against the proposed

settlement that were asserted by Kaufmann. Under such circumstances, the Court finds it

appropriate to allow Kaufmann to withdraw his objections.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

1. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions to strike the D’Aria memorandum are hereby

GRANTED.

2. Kaufmann’s withdrawal of his objections to the proposed settlement is hereby

APPROVED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 106 and 121.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 219 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 4