Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02123/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02123-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

TONY BENADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC, THE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02123-JCS 

ORDER SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE REGARDING 

POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES OF 

CLASS NOTICE

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s submissions seeking final 

approval of the proposed settlement and an award of fees, and has identified the following 

potential issues. 

First, the Northern District of California guidelines for class action settlements state that 

class notice should include “the address for a website, maintained by the claims administrator or 

class counsel, that has links to the notice, motions for approval and for attorneys’ fees and any 

other important documents in the case.”

1

Paragraph 23 of the proposed notice approved by the 

Court included a placeholder for a website where class members could access the proposed 

settlement agreement.2 The reference to such a website appears to have been deleted from the 

actual notice mailed to class members, without leave of the Court to alter the approved notice. See

Roe Decl. Ex. 1 (dkt. 65-1) at ECF p. 5, ¶ 23.

Second, the Court specifically instructed class counsel at the November 19, 2014 hearing

that any motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed no later than fourteen days before the deadline for 

objections. The Ninth Circuit has held that approving class attorneys’ fees on a motion filed after 

 

1

Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements ¶ 3(2), 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.

2 An incomplete version of the proposed notice was filed with the third motion for preliminary 

approval. See Hoffman Supp’l Decl. Ex. C (dkt. 53-3). The complete proposed notice was 

provided in hard copy to the Court at the February 13, 2015 hearing. See dkt. 55-1 ¶ 23.

Case 3:13-cv-02123-JCS Document 66 Filed 06/02/15 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

Northern District of California

the deadline for objections is reversible error—even where class members had prior notice that 

counsel class would seek fees, and even where they had been apprised of the total fees sought. See 

generally In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). The Order 

Granting Preliminary Approval accordingly required Plaintiff to file his fees motion “no later than 

two weeks before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline.” Prelim. Approval Order (dkt. 56) ¶ 10. The 

motion for attorneys’ fees was nevertheless not filed until June 1, 2015, sixteen days after the May 

16, 2015 deadline for objections. See Roe Decl. Ex. 1 at ECF p. 9, ¶ 18.

The parties are therefore ORDERED to appear in person at a status conference at 10:30 

AM on June 8, 2015 in Courtroom G of the San Francisco federal courthouse to address these 

apparent deficiencies of class notice and to propose an appropriate remedy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02123-JCS Document 66 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 2