Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01483/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01483-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

AFRIKAA HOLLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01483-EMC 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Docket No. 28

Plaintiff Afrikaa Holloway initiated this FCRA suit against Petrochem Insulation, Inc. on

March 21, 2019. Ms. Holloway asserted the action on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative 

class. On September 24, 2019, the parties submitted a stipulation of dismissal to the Court. More 

specifically, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of Ms. Holloway’s individual claims with 

prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice. No class action has been certified in this 

case. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) requires the Court to 

review and approve a proposed voluntary dismissal, settlement, or 

other compromise of a certified class’s claims. The Ninth Circuit 

has held that Rule 23(e) also applies to settlements before 

certification, but in a much lighter form that does not entail “the 

kind of substantive oversight required when reviewing a settlement 

binding upon the class.” Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 

F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). Although there has been “some 

uncertainty” about whether this holding applies in the wake of the 

2003 amendments to Rule 23(e), courts in this district continue to 

follow Diaz to evaluate the proposed settlement and dismissal of 

putative class claims.

Dunn v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., No. 13-cv-05456-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

4338, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016).

Case 3:19-cv-01483-EMC Document 29 Filed 09/25/19 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

Under Diaz, a court

inquire[s] into possible prejudice from (1) class members’ possible 

reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it 

either because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of 

adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a 

rapidly approaching statute of limitations, [and] (3) any settlement 

or concession of class interests made by the class representative or 

counsel in order to further their own interests.

Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1408. “If, after considering these factors, a district court concludes that there is 

a risk of prejudicial or unfair impacts from the pre-certification settlement of putative class claims, 

Diaz also held that district courts may require notice to putative class members.” Dunn, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 4338, at *9.

The Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs and/or evidence regarding the Diaz

factors. The briefs shall include a description of all publicity concerning this case and its filing. 

Either cross-briefs or a joint brief shall be filed within a week of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01483-EMC Document 29 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 2