Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330-53/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE

CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION.

Case No. 12-md-02330-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MR. CULP’S 

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND 

JUDGMENT

Docket No. 501

Currently pending before the Court is Scott Culp’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

To the extent Mr. Culp’s motion has been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e), it is untimely. Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend “must be filed no later than 28 

days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Here, final judgment was entered on 

August 25, 2016. See Docket No. 485 (final judgment). Mr. Culp’s motion was not filed until 

November 17, 2016, which is more than 28 days after the entry of judgment. See Docket No. 501 

(envelope). The Court acknowledges that Mr. Culp is in prison. Thus, it is likely that he gave his 

motion to prison authorities for mailing in advance of November 17 – or even November 14 (the 

date his motion was mailed). But even if Mr. Culp gave the motion to prison authorities for 

mailing as early as, e.g., November 1, that would still make his motion untimely.

To the extent Mr. Culp’s motion has been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b), the Court still is not inclined to grant him relief, with one exception, which is discussed 

below. In its final approval order, the Court noted that, although it had received a filing from Mr. 

Culp, no claim form had been submitted by him to the settlement administrator. See Docket No. 

481 (Order at 8-9 n.6); see also Docket No. 477 (Vasquez Decl. ¶ 18) (stating that “no claim was 

received from Scott Culp”). In his pending motion, Mr. Culp disputes such, stating that he “sent 

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 503 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California

in a class action form with a valid phone number” and, “[b]ecause I am incarcerated and moved[,] 

I notified class action counsel again. Because they failed to respond I wrote directly to the court.” 

Mot. at 1. The Court gives little weight to Mr. Culp’s assertions, particularly because he has 

submitted no evidence to substantiate them (e.g., no declaration and no supporting 

documentation). Furthermore, Mr. Culp’s primary goal here seems to be to get greater relief than 

the rest of the class, see Mot. at 1 (asserting that “other class members . . . did not suffer mental 

health issues stemming from defendents [sic] actions”), but that is not what the parties negotiated 

and, in any event, he has not provided any evidence to support his claims of unique injury.

Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Culp’s motion to amend the judgment, with one 

exception. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have indicated that they do not object to Mr. Culp’s 

alternative request that he be excluded from the class action. In light of this circumstance, the 

Court grants Mr. Culp’s request to be excluded from the class action. Mr. Culp’s motion is 

otherwise denied.

This order disposes of Docket No. 501.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 503 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2