Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02625/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02625-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

16CV2625 JLS (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER MAXIN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

RHG & COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16CV2625 JLS (BLM)

ORDER DIRECTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO THE 

CLASS

(ECF No. 12)

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Ex Parte Application to Modify the 

Preliminary Approval Order Regarding Plaintiff Heather Maxin’s Deadline to File Motions 

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; and, Final Approval (“MTN,” ECF No. 12). The parties 

request modifications to the Court’s preliminary approval order (“Prelim. Approval 

Order,” ECF No. 11). In that Order, the Court set a schedule for further proceedings. (Id.

at 18.) The parties state the Court’s Order does not permit time for the class members to 

review Plaintiff’s Fee Petition in determining how to respond to the notice. (MTN 2 (citing 

In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993–95 (9th Cir. 2010).) 

\ \ \

\ \ \

Case 3:16-cv-02625-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16CV2625 JLS (BLM)

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 In re Mercury, the Ninth Circuit held that the “plain text of [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)1] 

requires that any class member be allowed an opportunity to object to the fee ‘motion’ 

itself, not merely to the preliminary notice that such a motion will be filed.” Id. at 993–94. 

At the time of preliminary approval, the Court ordered the final day for objections to fall 

before Class Counsel moved for its attorney’s fees. (Prelim. Approval Order 18.) 

The Court finds it would be premature to set a schedule for further proceedings, as 

requested by the parties, until the Court has reviewed the supplemental notice to the class 

regarding the fee motion. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d); 23(e)(1).) Thus, the Court DENIES 

the parties’ joint motion. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit to the Court for its 

review the supplemental notice on or before seven days after the electronic docketing of 

this Order. Once the Court receives the notice, the Court will promptly assess its adequacy 

pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and issue a schedule for notification and further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

 

1 Rule 23(h) states, in relevant part:

(1) A claim for an award must be made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2), subject to the provisions of 

this subdivision (h), at a time the court sets. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties and, 

for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner.

(2) A class member, or a party from whom payment is sought, may object to the motion.

Case 3:16-cv-02625-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2