Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02132/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02132-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

WILLIAM HOPWOOD, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02132-YGR 

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) SETTING 

COMPLIANCE HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 95

Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on 

February 18, 2015. (Dkt. No. 95.) The Court heard the motion on March 31, 2015. Having 

carefully considered the materials submitted and for the reasons discussed at the hearing, approval 

is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court outlines below the concerns and/or 

deficiencies which should be addressed before final approval.

A. With respect to the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 95-1 (“Settlement Agreement”)):

1. Section 1.31 of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Administration 

Expenses”) should provide an estimate or maximum amount of such expenses, 

or specify that such expenditures must be reasonable.

2. Section 1.36 of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Fund”) should be 

corrected as noted at the hearing to ensure timely payments to proposed 

settlement class members upon final approval given that the amount needed to 

fund those payments will be known at the time of funding.

3. Section 1.39 of the Settlement Agreement (“Unknown Claims”) should clearly 

indicate that only claims based on calls placed “by Infinity” on behalf of 

Nuance are subject to release. “[D]irectly or indirectly” should be stricken 

from Section 1.26 (“Released Claims”) as creating undue ambiguities.

Case 4:13-cv-02132-YGR Document 98 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

4. Section 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement (“Payments for Approved Claims”) 

should indicate, in sub-section (b), that checks must be mailed to class members 

within 30 days of issuance.

5. Section 6.5 of the Settlement Agreement should be limited to challenges to 

claims presented to Judge Larson (Ret.) prior to the final approval hearing.

6. Section 8.1 of the Settlement Agreement should limit permissible amendments 

without court approval to those made within 180 days of final approval.

7. Section 8.3(f) of the Settlement Agreement should clarify that claims are not 

released for class members who exclude themselves from the settlement.

8. Section 11.2’s provision mandating an injunction against all class members 

from bringing or maintaining related actions pending final approval requires 

clarification. The parties shall explain whether such claims currently exist 

requiring such action.

9. Section 11.13 of the Settlement Agreement should only purport to make 

representations and warranties by the named plaintiff and class counsel or, at 

most, by class members who expressly opt-in.

10. Section 11.16’s prohibition on media contact should not apply to absent class 

members.

B. With respect to the attendant documents (Settlement Agreement, Exs. 1-4):

1. Generally, the notices and opt-in forms should be revised substantially for 

clarity.

2. Notice documents and claim forms should indicate more precisely that the calls 

at issue—while technically placed by defendant Infinity Contact, Inc. 

(“Infinity”) on behalf of Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”)—were 

identified during the calls as coming from Nuance, with no mention of Infinity.

3. The long-form notice should indicate the estimated number of class members 

and explain that class members may also object solely to the proposed amount 

of attorney’s fees. The single reference to “www.website.net” should be 

Case 4:13-cv-02132-YGR Document 98 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

updated to “www.SoftwareCallSettlement.com.” 

4. The front of the postcard notice should indicate that the recipient may be 

entitled to a flat payment of up to $170 or up to $65 per qualifying call. 

5. Both claim forms should indicate the “Personal Claim Number” is optional, 

consistent with the Settlement Agreement.

The parties may file a renewed motion for preliminary approval on an expedited briefing 

schedule. If the motion is unopposed, a hearing may be set on seven (7) days’ notice. 

A compliance hearing regarding the status of the renewed motion shall be held on Friday, 

May 1, 2015 on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, 

Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. By five (5) business days prior to the date of the compliance 

hearing, the parties shall file either: (a) the renewed motion for preliminary approval; or (b) a onepage joint statement setting forth an explanation for their failure to comply. If compliance is 

complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. 

Telephonic appearances will be allowed if the parties have submitted a joint statement in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

This Order terminates Docket Number 95.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-02132-YGR Document 98 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3