Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05626/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHIL SHIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-05626-NC 

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF THE CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 57

In this consumer class action, plaintiff Phil Shin moves for preliminary approval of 

a proposed class action settlement. See Dkt. No. 57; see also Dkt. No. 57-1 (“Settlement 

Agreement”). The parties seek to settle all claims relating to defendant Plantronics Inc.’s 

wireless headphones in exchange for an extended limited warranty or cash payment for

class members. See id. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Shin’s unopposed 

motion for preliminary approval.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Plantronics is a headphones designer and manufacturer, who created the BackBeat 

FIT wireless headphones (the “Headphones”). See Dkt. No. 35 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1, 11. The 

Headphones are marketed as “sweatproof” and “waterproof,” with rechargeable batteries 

that are supposed to last for up to eight hours per charge. Id. ¶¶ 2–3.

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 1 of 12
2

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

Northern District of California

Shin purchased his Headphones through an online retailer in March 2015 after 

seeing Plantronics’s advertisements. Id. ¶¶ 10, 36–38. By mid-January 2016, Shin noticed 

that the Headphones became difficult to charge. Id. ¶ 40. Shin suspected that the battery 

life diminished because he used the Headphones while exercising, but they were not sweator waterproof. Id. ¶ 41. Plantronics provided Shin with a replacement in February, but the 

replacement failed as well. Id.

B. Procedural History

Shin initiated this lawsuit on September 13, 2018. See Dkt. No. 1. On December 

14, 2018, in response to Plantronics’s motion to dismiss, Shin amended his complaint

alleging eight claims for relief: (1) breach of express warranty under the Magnuson Moss 

Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301; (2) breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson 

Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301; (3) breach of express warranty under California 

law; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the California SongBeverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791 et seq.; (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness 

for a particular purpose; (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. 

Civ. Code §§ 1761 et seq.; (7) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. 

& Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and (8) fraud. See FAC ¶¶ 61–175. Each claim is 

predicated on Shin’s allegations regarding the Headphones’ “rapidly diminishing battery 

life” and “failure to resist sweat and water” as warranted. Id. ¶ 6.

On February 13, 2019, Plantronics moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. 

See Dkt. No. 40. The parties completed their briefing and the Court held a hearing on the 

motion on March 27, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, 47. One day later, and before the Court 

ruled on Plantronics’s motion, the parties reached a settlement and filed a joint notice of 

class action settlement the following week. See Dkt. No. 57 at 11; see also Dkt. Nos. 49, 

50. Shin moved for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on May 24, 2019. 

See Dkt. No. 57. The Court held a hearing on June 12, 2019. See Dkt. No. 61. All parties 

have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. See Dkt. Nos. 13, 17.

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 2 of 12
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. Settlement Agreement

The Settlement seeks to settle claims for a proposed settlement class of “all Persons 

domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail the 

Headphones . . . during the period of time from April 1, 2014 through the Notice Date.” 

See Settlement § 3.8.

Under the Settlement, class members are entitled to one of three alternative 

remedies. See id. § 6. Alternative 1 is an extended limited warranty that runs from the 

effective date of the Settlement. See id. § 6.2. This alternative is limited to class members 

who purchased Headphones after January 1, 2018. Id. Under the extended warranty, class 

members may receive a functional replacement1if their Headphones suffers from a battery 

charging issue. Id. §§ 6.2(b), 6.4. Alternative 2 is a $50 cash payment. See id. § 6.6.1. 

To qualify for this alternative, class members must provide proof of purchase and evidence 

that they had previously complained to Plantronics that their Headphones did not function 

properly due to a battery charging issue. Id. § 6.6.1(b), (c). Alternative 3 is a $25 cash 

payment. See id. § 6.6.2. Under this alternative, class members must provide proof of 

purchase and only need to attest that their Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work 

properly due to a battery charging issue. Id. § 6.6.2(b), (c).

In return, class members who do not opt out of the settlement agree to release all 

claims relating to “any alleged defect or deficiency in the Headphones” and Plantronics’s

advertising relating to the Headphones. Id. § 11.1. Claims for personal injury and 

emotional distress are not waived. Id. § 11.2.

Under the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator is responsible for providing 

notice. See id. § 7. A full Settlement Notice and Short Form Notice will be sent to 

individuals who purchased or registered their Headphones from Plantronics, and 

reasonably identifiable individuals who purchased the Headphones from third parties. Id.

 

1 The replacement headphones are not identical to the Headphones at issue; they “are a 

new design and utilize batteries from a different manufacturer than the Headphones that 

are the subject of this litigation.” See Dkt. No. 57-7 (“Goldenberg Decl.”) ¶ 9.

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 3 of 12
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

§§ 7.3(a), (b); see also Dkt. Nos. 57-3, 57-4 (Short Form Notices), 57-5 (full Settlement 

Notice). The Settlement permits Class Counsel to move for an order directing third-party 

retailers to provide contact information for customers who purchased the Headphones. Id.

§ 7.3(d). In addition, the Settlement Administrator will also publish the Settlement Notice

and maintain a website for class members to submit claims. See id. §§ 7.4, 7.5.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of any settlement 

by a certified class. “The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members of the 

class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights. Pilkington v. Cardinal 

Health, Inc. (In re Syncor ERISA Litig.), 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

Accordingly, a settlement should only be approved if it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, 

and reasonable.” Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the proposed settlement meets 

this standard, the Court does not have the ability “to delete, modify, or substitute certain 

provisions . . . . The settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Id. Due to the dangers of 

collusion between class counsel and the defendant, settlement approval that takes place 

prior to formal class certification requires a higher standard of fairness. Hanlon v. 

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (1998).

“The Court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and direct notice to the 

class if the settlement: “(1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive 

negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential

treatment to class representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of 

possible approval.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. 08-cv-05198-EMC, 2011 WL 

1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2011); In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 

1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

III. Discussion

The Court denies the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement 

for three reasons. First, the parties’ Settlement releases claims based on facts beyond those 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 4 of 12
5

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

Northern District of California

alleged in the first amended complaint. Second, the Settlement relief is not adequate. 

Third, the parties’ proposed notices and notice plan is lacking. 

A. Identical Factual Predicate Rule

In the Ninth Circuit, “a settlement agreement may preclude a party from bringing a 

related claim in the future ‘even though the claim was not presented and might not have 

been presentable in the class action,’ but only where the released claim is ‘based on the 

identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action.’” Hesse 

v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 

F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, settlements may release claims only when “those 

claims depend on the same set of facts as the claims that gave rise to the settlement.” Id.

Courts in this district have routinely denied approval of class action settlements 

under this rule. In Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-cv-00350-JST, 2013 WL 

4552789, at *1, 4, 6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013), the court denied approval of a class action 

settlement that released claims “regardless of whether any such claim is based on the 

[breach-of-contract] allegations in the complaint.” Likewise, in Chavez v. PVH Corp., No. 

13-cv-01797-LHK, 2015 WL 581382, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015), the court denied 

approval of an unpaid wages class settlement that attempted to release claims related to 

meal breaks, bag checks, or overtime pay even though those claims would arise under the 

same California statute. See also Christensen v. Hillyard, Inc., No. 13-cv-04389-NC, 2014 

WL 3749523, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2014) (denying approval of class settlement 

because “it does not directly track the allegations in the complaint.”).

This Settlement suffers from a similar deficiency. The Settlement releases “any and 

all manner of . . . claims alleged or that could have been alleged in the Lawsuit or that arise 

from or relate to any act, harm, omission . . . or event whatsoever arising out of the 

performance of the Headphones, any alleged defect or deficiency in the Headphones, 

Defendant’s advertising, marketing . . . or sale or distribution of the Headphones . . . .” 

Settlement § 11.1 (emphasis added). The first amended complaint, however, limits its

factual allegations to alleged defects with the Headphone’s battery, inability to resist sweat 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 5 of 12
6

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

Northern District of California

or water as warranted, and Plantronics’s allegedly misleading representations regarding the 

Headphones’ battery life and sweat- or waterproofing. See generally, FAC. But the 

Settlement releases claims that may arise from facts not alleged in the first amended 

complaint. For example, as Shin’s counsel noted at the preliminary approval hearing, the 

Settlement would release claims concerning a defect that renders the Headphones unable to 

moderate volume. But this defect may be wholly unrelated to the alleged battery problems 

or lack of waterproofing. Such a broad release of claims cannot be approved. This reason 

alone warrants denial.

B. Adequacy of Settlement

The Court also finds that the settlement is inadequate. To reiterate, the Settlement 

provides three alternative remedies for the class: (1) an extended limited warranty for class 

members who purchased their Headphones after January 1, 2018; (2) a $50 cash payment 

with proof of a prior complaint regarding a battery charging issue; or (3) a $25 cash 

payment without such proof. See Settlement § 6.6.

The recently amended Rule 23(e) requires that the Court consider four overarching 

factors before approving a class settlement:

(A) the class representative and class counsel have adequately represented the 

class; 

(B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;

(C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:

(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;

(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the 

class, including the method of processing class-member claims;

(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing 

of payment; and

(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and

(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). This amendment does not “displace any factor” previously 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 6 of 12
7

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

Northern District of California

announced by the Ninth Circuit, but instead “focus the court and the lawyers on the core 

concerns of procedure and substance that should guide the decision whether to approve the 

proposal.” Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, subdiv. (e)(2) (2018).

Thus, the Court will also consider factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit to determine 

the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement: “(1) the strength of the 

plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; 

(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in 

settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the 

experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) 

the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. 

General Electric, 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026). 

Further, because settlement was reached before formal class certification, a “higher level 

of scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest [is] required . . . .” Jones 

v. GN Netcom, Inc. (In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.), 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026). 

Here, the fourth and fifth Hanlon factors weigh against approval of the Settlement. 

Likewise, “the terms of [the] proposed award of attorney’s fees” also caution against 

approval. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(iii); see also In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947 (“[C]ourts 

therefore must be particularly vigilant . . . when the parties negotiate a ‘clear sailing’ 

arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys’ fees separate and apart from class 

funds . . . .”).

Under the fourth Hanlon factor, courts often compare the proposed class’ expected 

recovery at trial to the value of the proposed settlement. See Terry v. Hoovestol, Inc., No. 

16-cv-5183-JST, 2018 WL 4283420, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018) (citing In re 

Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1080). “[A] cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of 

the potential recovery does not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair.” 

Dunleavy v. Nadler (In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 7 of 12
8

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

Northern District of California

Plantronics estimates that the proposed settlement class contains roughly 1.3 million 

members with approximately 300,000 class members qualifying for the extended limited 

warranty. See Goldenberg Decl. ¶ 9. Because the Headphones generally sold for between 

$60 and $90 each, Shin estimates that class recovery at trial would be between $7.8 million 

and $11.7 million. Id. ¶ 18. Shin then estimates anticipated class recovery under the 

Settlement to be between $3.25 million and $6.5 million assuming a 10% claim rate 

without accounting for the value of the extended limited warranty. Id.

This comparison, however, is flawed. Shin fails to account for the fact that class 

members can only recover under the Settlement for battery charging issues. See 

Settlement § 6.6. This is so even though the first amended complaint alleges defects with 

both the Headphones’ battery and waterproofing (see FAC ¶¶ 61–81), and the proposed 

settlement class includes “all Persons . . . who purchased at retail the Headphones . . .” 

(Settlement § 3.8 (emphasis added)). Under the narrow terms of relief, it is possible that 

far less than 10% of the class would qualify and file a claim for recovery under the 

Settlement.2 This discrepancy between the narrow relief offered to the class and the broad 

release of all claims—even those that do not rely on battery charging issues—is striking 

and militates against approval.

Moreover, Shin appears to have done little to no independent research regarding 

how many individuals may qualify for each remedy. This casts substantial doubt on Shin’s 

comparison of the anticipated class recovery to the estimated class recovery at trial. The 

Court is mindful that such information may be difficult to come by given that no discovery 

has occurred, and this case is still in the early stages of litigation. But the difficulty of 

obtaining reliable information is no excuse for haphazard estimates, particularly where the 

Settlement seeks to release an all-encompassing class from virtually all claims relating to 

the Headphones. In short, the Court is unconvinced by Shin’s assessment of the amount 

offered in the settlement and finds that the fourth Hanlon factor weighs against approval.

 

2 This is further compounded by the inadequate notice plan proposed by the parties as 

discussed below.

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 8 of 12
9

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

Northern District of California

The fifth Hanlon factor—“extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings”—also weighs against approval. Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 575. As 

recounted above, this lawsuit is in the early stages of proceedings and no formal discovery 

had been taken. Indeed, the parties settled one day after the hearing on Plantronics’s 

motion to dismiss. The lack of formal discovery is reflected in Shin’s motion for 

preliminary approval, which relies heavily on Plantronics’s own representations regarding 

many critical facts including the size of the class and number of class members eligible for 

particular modes of relief. This factor alone does not doom the Settlement. Cf. Class 

Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining the “strong 

judicial policy” in favor of settling class actions). But the lack of formal discovery and the 

earliness of the settlement amplifies the Court’s concerns regarding its adequacy.

Finally, the Settlement provides for a “clear sailing” arrangement regarding the 

payment of attorneys’ fees. See Settlement § 10. Such arrangements are not per se 

unreasonable, but “carr[y] ‘the potential of enabling a defendant to pay class counsel 

excessive fees and costs in exchange for counsel accepting an unfair settlement on behalf 

of the class.’” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947 (quoting Lobatz v. U.S. Cellular of Cal., 

Inc., 222 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000)). Although the Court has seen no evidence of 

collusion, the presence of a “clear sailing” attorneys’ fees arrangement, coupled with the 

deficiencies outlined above, also gives the Court pause.

C. Proposed Notice Plan

Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “upon ordering notice under Rule 23(e)(1) to a class 

proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement under Rule 23(b)(3)—the court must

direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, 

including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable 

effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). To comply with Rule 23, “the notice must clearly and 

concisely state in plain, easily understood language”:

(i) the nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 9 of 12
10

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

Northern District of California

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the 

member so desires;

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests 

exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).

Id. In short, notice must allow class members to “assess the reasonableness of the 

settlement.” In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 16-md-02752-

LHK, 2019 WL 387322, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2019) (citing Churchill Village, 361 F.3d 

at 575); see also Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, subdiv. (c)(2) (2018)

(“The ultimate goal of giving notice is to enable class members to make informed 

decisions about whether to opt out or . . . to object or to make claims.”).

The Settlement lists two methods to identify class members: (1) Plantronics will 

provide contact information for class members “who directly purchased Headphones from 

Plantronics on [its] website or registered their Headphones with Plantronics, and (2) 

Plantronics will identify “the top 10 retailers of the Headphones” and “Class Counsel may 

seek to obtain an order to be entered by the Court directing these third parties” to provide 

contact information for potential class members or to deliver the class notice. Settlement 

§§ 7.3(a), (d). At the hearing, Shin’s counsel estimated that this proposal will identify over 

75% of the class. Counsel also stated that the majority of class members would be 

identified under the second method.

Once class members have been identified, the Settlement’s notice plan requires the 

Settlement administrator (or relevant third-party retailers) to mail or e-mail notices to 

individual class members. Id. §§ 7.3(a)–(c), (d)(ii). The Settlement also requires the 

administrator to provide “Publication Notice.” Id. § 7.4

The Court is not convinced that this plan would provide “the best notice that is 

practicable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 10 of 12
11

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

Northern District of California

23(e)(1)(B) (“The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members 

who would be bound by the proposal . . . .”). As noted by Shin’s counsel, a large majority 

of the class cannot be identified through Plantronics’s records and effective notice under 

this plan requires the cooperation of third-party retailers. Thus, the prudent course of 

action would be to secure third-party cooperation either before or in connection with this 

motion. But the parties have not done so. Indeed, the Settlement does not even require

such action. See Settlement § 7.3(d) (“Class Counsel may seek to obtain an order . . . .”

(emphasis added)). Further, the Settlement provides no contingency in the event those 

retailers refuse to provide their customers’ information or deliver the class notice. And if 

those retailers agree to deliver the notice instead of turning over customer information, the 

Settlement provides insufficient oversight of that largely voluntary process. See id.

§ 7.3(d)(ii)–(iii).

Normally, publication notice would act to cover such gaps in the parties’ outreach 

to the class. By publishing the settlement notice on popular forums for discussion or 

complaints about the Headphones, for example (see FAC ¶¶ 25, 27 (identifying complaints 

regarding the Headphones on Plantronics and Amazon’s websites)), the parties could target

potential class members with reasonable accuracy. But here, the Settlement provides no 

details on what that publication notice would entail. See Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23, subdiv. (c)(2) (2018) (“In providing the court with sufficient information to 

enable it to decide whether to give notice to the class-action settlement under Rule 

23(e)(1), it would ordinarily be important to include details about the proposed method of 

giving notice . . . .” (emphasis added)). The Court simply cannot assess the reasonableness 

and efficacy of the proposed notice plan without such information.

Furthermore, the proposed notices themselves are not adequate. As stated above, 

Rule 23 requires notices to “clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood 

language . . . the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Here, the Short Form Notices (see Dkt. No. 57-3, 57-4) fail to

adequately explain to class members “the binding effect of a class judgment.” Id. 

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 11 of 12
12

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

Northern District of California

Specifically, the Short Form Notices do not tell the class members that they will release 

Plantronics from virtually all claims regarding the Headphones if they do not opt out. See

Settlement § 11.1. The full Settlement Notice (see Dkt. No. 57-5) does explain the 

consequence of staying in the settlement class (see id. ¶¶ 29–30) but fails to do so “clearly 

and concisely . . . in plain, easily understood language.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 

Instead, the full Settlement Notice merely copies and pastes the full release language from 

the Settlement, which is heavy on legalese and difficult to parse. See Dkt. No. 57-5 ¶ 30.

In short, the Settlement’s proposed notices and notice plan fall short of Rule 23’s 

requirements. This also weighs against preliminary approval. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Shin’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

D. Class Certification and Attorneys’ Fees

Because the Court denies preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the 

Court declines to decide whether the proposed settlement class may be properly certified 

under Rule 23(b)(3). Likewise, the Court does not decide whether the amount of

attorneys’ fees, costs, and service award to the named plaintiff is reasonable.

IV. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Shin’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class 

action settlement without prejudice. The Court SETS a further case management 

conference for August 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. The parties must file a joint case 

management statement by August 5, 2019. See L.R. 16-10(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2019 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 64 Filed 06/17/19 Page 12 of 12