Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03903/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03903-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

An order approving a Modified Settlement Agreement was entered on September 7,

2011. The Modified Settlement Agreement did not alter the relevant terms of the initial

Settlement Agreement. See Modified Settlement Agreement at 39 (Docket No. 281).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET BENAY CURTISBAUER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO.,

Defendant.

NO. C06-3903 TEH

ORDER GRANTING ARTHUR

VILLANUEVA’S MOTION TO

FILE A LATE CLAIM

Currently before the Court is a motion filed by Arthur Villanueva requesting leave to

file a late claim in this class action. Villanueva seeks full payment of his claim, but only to

the extent that any sums remain in the settlement fund after all timely claims have been paid

and administrative costs deducted. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, and with good cause

appearing, the Court GRANTS Villanueva’s motion for the reasons set forth below.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in this case on

February 7, 2008, and final approval on October 22, 2008.1

 The Settlement Agreement

provided that, to be eligible for an award from the settlement fund, a class member “must

submit a Claim Form which must be postmarked or actually received by the date established

by the Court, unless good cause exists for a late Claim Form submission (which in no event

may be submitted after claims are paid from the Settlement Fund).” Settlement Agreement at

37 (Docket No. 250). The preliminary approval order established May 23, 2008, as the

postmark deadline. Preliminary Approval Order at 23 (Docket No. 158). With respect to

late claims, the order specified that “[f]ailure to postmark a complete Claim Form by the

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 296 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Claim Filing Deadline shall bar the Settlement Class member from receiving any monetary

award pursuant to the proposed Settlement Agreement” absent a showing of good cause. Id. 

Villanueva completed the claim form and placed it in a mail chute in his office

building on May 20, 2008. Had the form been postmarked on that day, it would have been

timely. However, the form was not postmarked until June 16, 2008, over three weeks after

the postmark deadline. 

Villanueva first learned that his claim form had a late postmark in November 2010,

when he called the Special Master to inquire about the status of his claim. The Special

Master subsequently sent Villanueva an official notice stating that his claim was untimely

and inviting him to submit an explanation of why his claim form was postmarked after the

deadline. Upon discussing this matter with his co-workers, Villanueva learned that letters

frequently got stuck in the mail chute in his office building. Villanueva sent a letter to the

Special Master explaining that he deposited the claim form in the mail chute in his office

building on May 20, 2008, and stating that he did not know why it was not postmarked until

June 16, 2008. The Special Master determined that Villanueva had not established good

cause for missing the postmark deadline. 

Villanueva now petitions the Court for leave to file a late claim. In support of his

request, he has submitted his own declaration and declarations from two coworkers, one of

whom is his wife. Class Counsel opposes Villanueva’s request. Defendants have not filed

an opposition or a statement of non-opposition.

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds the declarations submitted by Villanueva

to be credible, particularly in the absence of any contrary evidence. Based on these

declarations, the Court finds that Villanueva filled out and signed the claim form and

deposited it for mailing on May 20, 2008 – three days prior to the postmark deadline. Class

Counsel correctly observe that Villanueva presents no direct evidence that the form got stuck

in the mail chute, but it is unclear what form such evidence would take. The declarations

submitted by Villanueva are sufficient to establish that the claim form received a late

postmark through no fault of Villanueva’s.

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 296 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Class Counsel argues that permitting Villanueva to file a claim would be unfair to the

Class Members whose claims were denied as untimely, and in particular the other four Class

Members whose explanations for missing the postmark deadline were rejected by the Special

Master. The Court’s decision whether to permit Villanueva to file a late claim has no bearing

on the claims of individuals who have not petitioned the Court for permission to file a late

claim. But it would be unfair to Villanueva to reject his meritorious petition on the basis that

others with potentially meritorious arguments have not presented those arguments to the

Court. 

Class Counsel also points out that the process of distributing the Settlement Fund has

already begun, and if all qualified claimants submit their releases and cash their claim

checks, no funds will remain. However, Villanueva requests that his claim be paid from any

money remaining in the settlement fund after all timely postmarked claims have been paid,

and he understands that he will receive nothing if no settlement funds are available. The fact

that it is possible that no money ultimately will be available to pay Villanueva is not a valid

basis for denying him permission to submit a claim.

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Villanueva has established good cause

excusing the submission of his claim form after the postmark deadline. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS Villanueva’s motion for permission to file a late claim. The Special Master

shall pay Villanueva the amount to which he is entitled under the Settlement Agreement, if

any, but only out of money remaining in the Settlement Fund after the other claimants’

claims have been paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/2/2013 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-03903-TEH Document 296 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3