Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03525/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03525-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF BOWMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-3525 MMC

ORDER RE: LAWRENCE R.

KAUFMANN’S WITHDRAWAL OF 

OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT

On November 15, 2006, the Court received a letter from an attorney on behalf of

Lawrence R. Kaufmann (“Kaufmann”), dated November 13, 2006, along with Kaufmann’s

declaration, by which documents Kaufmann notified the Court that Kaufman was

withdrawing his motion to intervene in the instant action as well as his objection to the

proposed settlement of the instant action.

Kaufmann may, without court approval, withdraw both his motion to intervene and

his objection to the proposed settlement. Although a class member’s objection to a

proposed class action settlement “may be withdrawn only with the court’s approval,” see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4)(B), Kaufmann is not a member of the Bowman class. The instant

class action is asserted on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who, between June

30, 2000 and the present, worked for UBS as a Financial Advisor or Financial Advisor

Trainee in California. (See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 6.) Kaufmann states he

worked as a financial advisor for UBS in New Jersey. (See Kaufman Objection at 1 n.1.) 

Rule 23(e)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny class

member may object to a proposed settlement[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4)(A). “The

Case 3:04-cv-03525-MMC Document 141 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 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

2

plain language of Rule 23(e) clearly contemplates allowing only class members to object to

settlement proposals.” Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir. 1989). 

Consequently, “non-class members have no standing to object, pursuant to a Rule 23(e)

notice directed to class members, to a proposed class settlement.” See id.; see also San

Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1032

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (holding “nonclass members have no standing to object to the settlement

of a class action”). 

Because Kaufmann lacks standing to object to the Bowman settlement, the Court

finds approval of Kaufmann’s withdrawal of his objection is not required, and, accordingly,

deems said objection withdrawn.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03525-MMC Document 141 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2