Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 1

 The Court instructs Mr. Fleury that any future submission to the Court should be dated.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE FLEURY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-4525 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF FLEURY’S

LETTER OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007

(Docket No. 201)

Plaintiff Andre Fleury has submitted an undated letter which was received by the Court on

November 28, 2007.1

 The letter was received after the Court issued its order granting preliminary

approval of the proposed class settlement. Nothing in Mr. Fleury’s correspondence alters the

Court’s conclusion that preliminary approval is appropriate. The Court has determined that the

proposed settlement appears sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate in order to justify

preliminary approval.

The changes to the notice proposed by Mr. Fleury are not appropriate. The Court has not

appointed Mr. Fleury the class representative. To the extent Mr. Fleury is arguing that he should be

appointed a class representative, that request is denied. Mr. Fleury has failed to demonstrate that he

is an adequate representative as he is proceeding pro se. See Wright & Miller, 7A Fed. Prac. &

Proc. Civ. 3d R23 (stating that “class representatives cannot appear pro se”); Oxendine v. Williams,

509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (in civil rights class action brought by a pro se prisoner

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 202 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 3
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

challenging prison policies, stating that “we consider the competence of a layman representing

himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others”). Moreover, papers

previously filed by Mr. Fleury suggest that he seeks monetary compensation which is unique to him,

is unrealistic, and conflicts with the interests of the class as a whole.

This order disposes of Docket No. 201.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 202 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE FLEURY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-4525 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Andre Fleury

523 Fourth Street

San Rafael, CA 94901

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING

Dated: November 29, 2007 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 202 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3