Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02483/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02483-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

United States District Court

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 

GABRIELA BAYOL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZIPCAR, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02483-TEH 

ORDER RE: AUGUST 10, 2015 

HEARING

The parties shall come to the August 10, 2015 hearing prepared to address the 

following questions. 

For Plaintiff

1. Given the proposed class definition, why would the class be entitled to any 

amount from “All Late Fees Collected in California” that is not already included in “Late 

Fees Collected from California Residents Driving Anywhere in the United States?”

2. Does Plaintiff actually dispute that class members are not entitled to recover 

fees that have been refunded by Defendant? 

3. Does Plaintiff actually dispute that class members are not entitled to recover 

fees that were charged prior to May 30, 2010, due to the application of the statute of 

limitations? If so, why did Plaintiff use this date as the start of the relevant period for her 

discovery requests? 

4. Why should the Court estimate attorneys’ fees at anything greater than 25% 

of the common fund, when this amount is considered the “benchmark” award?

5. How should the Court estimate the time period for evaluating the cost of 

compliance with an injunction? 

6. The 30-day waiting period to amend the Complaint passed on June 28, 2014. 

What accounts for the delay in filing the motion for leave to amend? 

Case 3:14-cv-02483-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

For Defendant

1. What prejudice would Defendant suffer if leave to amend is granted? 

2. Does the amount of “refunded” late fees in the document produced to 

Plaintiff only include fees that were terminated before being paid, or does it include fees 

that were paid and then refunded?

3. Why does the Class Action Fairness Act not abrogate the authorities that 

preclude punitive damages or the value of injunctive relief from being aggregated? 

4. Does Defendant dispute that, if leave to amend is granted and punitive 

damages are aggregated, then Plaintiff will have alleged a sufficient amount in 

controversy?

5. How should the Court estimate the time period for evaluating the cost of 

compliance with an injunction? 

6. What accounts for the delay in filing the motion to dismiss? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/05/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02483-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2