Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03697/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03697-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

Scott A. Kamber (pro hac vice) 

skamber@kamberlaw.com 

David A. Stampley (pro hac vice) 

dstampley@kamberlaw.com

KamberLaw, LLC 

11 Broadway, 22nd Floor. 

New York, NY. 10004 

Telephone: (212) 920-3072 

Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 

Joseph H. Malley (pro hac vice) 

malleylaw@gmail.com 

Law Office of Joseph H. Malley 

1045 North Zang Blvd 

Dallas, TX 75208 

Telephone: (214) 943-6100 

Facsimile: (214) 943-6170 

David Parisi (SBN 162248) 

dparisi@parisihavens.com

Suzanne Havens Beckman (SBN 188814) 

shavens@parisihavens.com

Parisi & Havens LLP 

15233 Valleyheart Drive 

Sherman Oaks, California 91403 

Telephone: (818) 990-1299 

Facsimile: (818) 501-7852

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MIRIAM SLATER and SARA GOLDEN, 

individually and on behalf of a class of 

similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TAGGED, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

GREG TSENG; JOHANN SCHLEIERSMITH; and DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-09-3697 EMC

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

 

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 6
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

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

2

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the parties’ Amended Joint Case 

Management Conference Statement of January 29, 2010; the parties’ Principal Terms of 

Settlement (the “Settlement”) attached as Exhibit A to the January 31, 2010 Declaration of Scott 

A. Kamber; and the parties’ joint application to this Court on February 3, 2010. The Court, having 

considered all papers filed and proceedings had herein and taking into consideration the solely 

injunctive nature of the relief agreed to by the parties and the lack of any relinquishing of rights by 

the members of Class other than Plaintiffs, and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and 

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and all Class 

members, and to consider and enter this Order Approving Settlement (“Order”). 

2. Before certification is proper for any purpose, including settlement, the Court must 

ensure the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) have been met. See 

Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007); Denny v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., 443 

F.3d 253, 270 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court hereby finds that the Class meets all the requirements for 

certification pursuant to Rule 23(a). The Court further finds that the Class meets all the 

requirements for certification pursuant to Rule 23(b). The Class is defined as: 

All individuals or entities in the United States who, from April 16, 2009 to 

June 7, 2009, provided Tagged, Inc. with access to import their email 

address books not intending that Tagged, Inc. use the imported email 

addresses to send Tagged invitation messages; and all individuals who 

received such messages and, as a result, registered as Tagged members. 

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their legal representatives, assigns, 

and successors, and any entities in which Defendants have controlling 

interests. Also excluded is the judge to whom this case is assigned and the 

judge’s immediate family. 

3. The Court appoints as lead counsel, under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Scott A. Kamber and David A. Stampley of the law firm of KamberLaw, LLC. 

4. The parties conducted arm’s-length negotiations, including face-to-face and 

telephonic mediation sessions, in good faith that resulted in the proposed Settlement. 

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 6
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

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

3

5. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby 

approves the Settlement and finds that said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and 

adequate with respect to the Class, and directs that the Settlement be consummated in accordance 

with the terms and conditions set forth therein. 

6. Solely as to the named Plaintiffs in this matter, Miriam Slater and Sara Golden, and 

the named Defendants, Tagged, Inc., Greg Tseng, and Johann Schleier-Smith, this matter is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as set forth in the Settlement. 

7. As expressly acknowledged by Defendant before this Court on February 3, 2010, 

this Settlement is not intended to release any class claims nor have any res judicata effect on 

members of the Class, except as to the equitable remedy of injunctive relief addressing the precise 

Class period set forth in the Class definition, above, and harm addressed by this Settlement. Thus, 

for example, this settlement does not preclude a member of the Class from seeking damages for 

the same alleged wrong by Defendant during the Class period. 

8. Upon entry of this Order, the above-captioned named Plaintiffs, on behalf of 

themselves, their successors, and their assigns, and any other persons now or in the future 

claiming through or on behalf of them as individuals, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of 

this Order shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all of such 

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Tagged, Inc., Greg Tseng, and Johann Schleier-Smith that are 

based upon, arising out of, in connection with, or in any way relating to any of the acts, omissions, 

or other conduct of such Defendants alleged in this action, whether such claims are known or 

unknown, suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, and such Plaintiffs shall have 

covenanted not to sue such Defendants with respect to such claims, and shall be permanently 

barred and enjoined from instituting, commencing, prosecuting, or asserting any such claims 

against such Defendants. 

9. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a “court must direct notice in a 

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound” by a proposed settlement, voluntary 

dismissal, or compromise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). That the Settlement here is entered into 

pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) does not necessarily obviate the Rule 23(e) notice requirement. See 5-

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 6
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

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

4

23 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 23.162[1] (“With settlement notice, the court’s duty to order 

notice does not vary regardless of whether the class is certified under Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), 

or Rule 23(b)(3).”). The form and manner of notice, however, is discretionary under Rule 23(e). 

See id.; see also Walsh v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 726 F.2d 956, 962-63 (3d Cir. 1983) (noting 

that “Rule 23(e) makes some form of post-settlement notice in Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) class 

actions mandatory, although the form of notice is discretionary”). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has 

even stated that, “where a cohesive class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), notice [under Rule 

23(e)] may suffice if given to a suitable class representative.” Navarro-Ayala v. HernandezColon, 951 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 1991) (also noting that, because Rule 23(e) “leaves the form 

of the notice to the court’s discretion[,] courts have sometimes overlooked the absence of notice 

where there was clearly no prejudice to class members”). Taking into account the fact that (a) the 

instant case involves a Rule 23(b)(2) Class, (b) the Settlement herein has a limited preclusive 

effect (i.e., no preclusive effect on any claim by a Class member for damages), and (c) 

individualized e-mail notice would not appear to be advisable given the subject matter of this 

litigation is unwarranted e-mail communications, the Court finds the following to be reasonable 

notice in the instant case. 

a. Notice substantially in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto shall be provided on 

Google AdWords for a period of fifteen (15) days commencing as soon as 

practicable, but in no event any later than March 1, 2010; 

b. The above notice shall link to a website at the domain www.taggedsettlement.com

that shall provide the settlement documents for this case as well as an explanation 

that any objections must be received on or before March 30, 2010; 

c. The targeted ad words shall be “Tagged” in conjunction with any of the following 

words: “spam,” “address Book,” or “email.” The Plaintiffs may choose additional 

AdWords; 

d. The budget for AdWords shall be $300 per day; 

e. On April 7, 2010, Plaintiffs shall certify to the Court the completion of the above 

notice process and the date such process commenced and concluded; 

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 6
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

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

5

10. The Court, in its discretion, may hold a hearing on April 21, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., to 

consider any objections and make a determination on whether to vacate the Settlement and render 

it null and void, nunc pro tunc. After April 21, 2010, provided there are no objections or the Court 

otherwise overrules the objections, the Court shall enter a Judgment which shall be final as to all 

claims against Defendants, on the one hand, and the named Plaintiffs, on the other hand. 

11. This Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over (a) implementation of the 

Settlement; and (b) all other proceedings related to the implementation and enforcement of the 

terms of the Agreement and/or the Settlement. The time to appeal from this Order shall 

commence upon entry of a Final Judgment in this case, consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any dispute concerning the 

provisions of this Order or any Final Judgment based on this Order, including but not limited to 

any suit, action or proceeding in which the provisions of this Order or any Final Judgment based 

on this Order are asserted as a defense in whole or in part to any claim or cause of action asserted 

by any named Plaintiff herein or otherwise raised as an objection, shall constitute a suit, action or 

proceeding arising out of or relating to this Order or any Final Judgment based on this Order. 

Solely for purposes of any such suit, action or proceeding, to the fullest extent possible under 

applicable law, the named Defendants and the named Plaintiffs herein are deemed to have 

irrevocably waived and to have agreed not to assert, whether by way of motion, as a defense or 

otherwise, any claim, argument or objection that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of this 

Court or that this Court is in any way an improper venue or an inconvenient forum. 

12. As provided for in paragraph 4(a) of the Settlement as amended by the 

incorporation of the determination made by the mediator, this Court will entertain an application 

for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs as well as an incentive award to the named 

Plaintiffs. 

13. This Order shall be considered the Court’s approval order as contemplated to 

commence the effectuation of the terms of settlement pursuant to the Settlement between the 

parties and all dates contained therein shall run from the date of this Order. 

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 5 of 6
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

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

Order Approving Case No. 3:09-cv-3697 EMC 

Class Action Settlement 

6

14. Without further order of the Court, the parties settling hereunder may agree to 

reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement. 

Dated: February 18, 2010 

Edward M. Chen 

United States Magistrate Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:09-cv-03697-EMC Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 6 of 6