Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03860/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03860-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CREIGHTON, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNISOURCE WORLDWIDE, INC.,

Defendant.

NO. C06-03860 TEH 

ORDER REQUIRING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

ON MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

After reviewing the parties’ submissions in support of their joint motion for

preliminary approval of class action settlement, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is

required to address the provisional certification of the settlement class pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

When parties seek certification of a settlement class and approval of a class settlement

agreement, this Court is responsible for ensuring fairness to all members of the purported

class. District courts

have the responsibility of ensuring fairness to all members of the class presented

for certification. Especially in the context of a case in which the parties reach a

settlement agreement prior to class certification, courts must peruse the proposed

compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the

settlement.

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). When the parties reach a settlement

agreement prior to class certification, the Court “must pay ‘undiluted, even heightened,

attention’ to class certification requirements . . . .” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,

1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) establishes four prerequisites for class action

litigation: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of

Case 3:06-cv-03860-TEH Document 37 Filed 12/12/07 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

representation. The parties have not addressed these four prerequisites to provisional

certification of the settlement class. Cf. Proposed Order ¶ 3. The parties or the Plaintiffs

shall submit additional briefing to support a finding of provisional certification of the

settlement class. Specifically, they should address whether the proposed class meets the

requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) (as to adequacy

of named plaintiffs only). 

The Court has two additional concerns about the proposed settlement package. First,

the proposed enhancement payments of $50,000 for each of the three class representatives

seem high. Disproportionately large payments to named class members can raise serious

concerns about the fairness and adequacy of a settlement. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d

938, 975. On the other hand, named plaintiffs “are eligible for reasonable incentive

payments.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 977. Relevant factors include plaintiff’s actions to protect

the class, the extent those actions have benefitted the class, time and effort expended on the

case, and “reasonable fears” of workplace retaliation. Id. (citing Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d

1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998)). While incentive payments of $50,000 are not unheard of, see

Van Vraken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (awarding

named plaintiff $50,000 in class action where settlement fund exceeded $67 million, named

plaintiff participated in many years of litigation, provided key testimony at trial, and did not

receive any “great personal benefit” from the litigation), the Court will carefully scrutinize

the named plaintiffs’ roles to determine whether $50,000 is a reasonable incentive award. 

The Plaintiffs should submit additional information supported by declaration to the Court

that justifies the amount of the award to the named plaintiffs. 

The Court also has concerns that the proposed settlement allows any unclaimed

settlement funds to remain the property of Defendant Unisource Worldwide, Inc. This Court

generally disfavors proposed class action settlements that permit the defendant to retain

unclaimed settlement funds. Supplemental briefing should address the propriety of this

element of the settlement.

Case 3:06-cv-03860-TEH Document 37 Filed 12/12/07 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that either Plaintiffs or the parties jointly 

shall file supplemental briefing as set out above of no more than 10 pages, on or before

January 7, 2007. Once the Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing, it will schedule

oral argument on the motion if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 12/12/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-03860-TEH Document 37 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3