Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05324/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05324-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

BRITTANY KEENE, individually and on

behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COLDWATER CREEK, INC., a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05234 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

On August 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action

settlement (Dkt. No. 41). A hearing on the motion was held on September 18, 2008, at which

the Court expressed certain concerns with the proposed settlement. The parties met and

conferred thereafter, and on September 26, 2008, filed a joint memorandum responding to the

Court’s concerns (Dkt. No. 49). In their memorandum the parties proposed certain revised

settlement and notice terms and stated that, if the Court indicated a willingness to approve

settlement with those revised terms, the parties would file an amended settlement and

supporting documents. 

The Court declines to approve the proposed settlement on the terms set forth in the

September 26 memorandum. Although the proposed revisions to the settlement address several

of the Court’s concerns and have improved the agreement, the Court continues to have concern

with the adequacy of notice to absent class members. Specifically, the parties have declined to

Case 3:07-cv-05324-WHA Document 50 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 2
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

include a provision which would deem opted out of the class those potential class members for

whom the mailed notice is returned as undeliverable or, for class members who are currently

employed by defendant, for whom defendant does not secure a signed acknowledgment of

receipt of the notice. The Court finds that, under Rule 23(e), the proposed form of notice is

unreasonable under the circumstances. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1024–26

(9th Cir. 1998) (emphasizing the importance of adequate notice). The Court finds that the

proposed settlement does not include adequate means to assure that those class members who

do not receive the settlement notice are not bound thereby and, as a result, have their rights

released by the settlement without any knowledge thereof. It would be an easy matter to

exclude those whose notices are returned or unacknowledged and, if necessary, to adjustment

the price of the settlement accordingly. Preliminary approval is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2008 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05324-WHA Document 50 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2