Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02367/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02367-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THANH HUYNH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KATHERINE HARASZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL HEARING

The Court orders the parties to file, by September 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., a response to the 

following questions. The parties’ response may not exceed six pages in length. 

The parties should also be prepared to address these questions at the September 15, 2016 

preliminary approval hearing. 

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES

1. The parties are to identify any supporting legal authority which allows them to award

emotional distress damages on a classwide basis. 

On this point, the Court notes that several district courts within the Ninth Circuit 

have held that emotional distress damages may not be recovered on a classwide basis. See 

Rader v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 524, 530–31 (D. Nev. 2011); accord 

Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 290 F.R.D. 535, 546 n.9 (D. Nev. 2013) 

(finding classwide relief inappropriate because “emotional distress damages of the putative 

class members . . . could vary widely from class member to class member.”). In Berndt v. 

California Department of Corrections, 2012 WL 950625 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012), for 

instance, the district court explained that, “[w]hile it is often true that damages calculations 

alone cannot defeat certification, that principle [is not] applicable . . . where the emotional 

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 145 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING

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

distress damages to every class member will depend on the individual incidents, and on the 

kind and extent of . . . behavior they were exposed to, as well as the promptness and 

efficacy, or lack of efficacy, of defendants’ response to any complaints they may have 

made.” Id. at *13 (citation omitted). The Court’s research suggests that no court within 

the Ninth Circuit has ever granted emotional distress damages on a classwide basis.

 Given the foregoing legal authority, the Court is uncertain whether it can approve 

a classwide emotional damages award in the instant case.

OPT OUT PROCEDURE

1. Defendants request that the Court exercise its discretion and decline to give Class 

Members an opportunity to opt out. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4) (“If the class action 

was previously certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement 

unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members who 

had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do so.”). Does Class Counsel 

agree that the Court should exercise such discretion? In so, can the parties provide the 

Court with any examples in the Ninth Circuit where a court has declined, in its discretion,

to provide class members an opportunity to opt out?

ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

1. Fish and Richardson entered its first appearance in this action on November 6, 2015, ECF 

No. 64, after the motion for class certification was fully briefed. Accordingly, in granting

class certification, the Court appointed only Law Foundation as Class Counsel. Fish and 

Richardson has not filed a motion to be named as Class Counsel.

In the notice that was sent out to the Class after class certification, only Law 

Foundation was named as Class Counsel. ECF No. 92-3. In the proposed objection form 

that Class Counsel have submitted in their motion for preliminary approval, again only 

Law Foundation was named as Class Counsel. ECF No. 141-2. 

In short, Fish and Richardson has never been named as Class Counsel, no Class 

Member has consented to Fish and Richardson’s representation in this matter, and many 

Class Members may not even know of Fish and Richardson’s involvement in this matter. 

In the Settlement Agreement, Defendants have agreed to pay $712,500 in 

attorney’s fees and costs which will “cover[] all fees and costs incurred by the Law 

Foundation of Silicon Valley and Fish & Richardson.” ECF No. 141-1 at 6. 

Under the facts discussed above, the Court is unaware of any legal authority which 

would allow Fish and Richardson to receive part of the attorney’s fees award to cover Fish 

and Richardson’s fees and costs. The Court therefore requests Class Counsel to identify 

any supporting case law which would allow an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Fish 

and Richardson.

2. Fish and Richardson has consistently represented to the public that it has provided legal 

assistance in this case on a pro bono basis. See Ryan Davis, How to Help Young IP Attys 

Shine in Court, LAW360 (June 29, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/808298/how-tohelp-young-ip-attys-shine-in-court. The Court requests Class Counsel to identify any legal

authority which allows a private law firm to recover attorney’s fees and costs in a class 

action settlement even though the private law firm has consistently stated that its 

representation has been on a pro bono basis. 

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 145 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING

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

3. The parties must state why the representative Plaintiffs should receive $10,000 each in 

service awards. The Ninth Circuit has established $5,000 as a reasonable benchmark 

award for representative plaintiffs. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 

934, 947–48 (9th Cir. 2015); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 

2000). It is unclear why departure from this benchmark is appropriate in the instant case. 

As a point of comparison, the Court recently approved a class action settlement in In re 

Yahoo Mail Litigation, 13-CV-4980 (N.D. Cal.), where the four class representatives, who 

were involved in a complex, multi-year litigation, received $5,000 each. ECF No. 203 at 

21. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2016. 

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 145 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3