Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05944-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

MARIO JAKOSALEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIR SERV CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05944-SI 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 

SETTLEMENT TO OCTOBER 2, 2015

AT 9:30 A.M.

On May 4, 2015 the Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval 

of class action settlement. Docket No. 41. On August 13, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for final 

approval of class settlement, scheduled for a hearing on September 18, 2015. Docket No. 46.

However, in their motion for final approval, plaintiffs acknowledge that the Class Action 

Fairness Act (“CAFA”) notice was not sent out in a timely fashion. While defendant should have 

notified the appropriate state and government officials by April 11, 2015, notice was not sent out 

until July 2, 2015. Mot. at 15. 

CAFA requires that “no later than 10 days after a proposed settlement,” all defendants 

participating in the settlement must notify “the appropriate State official of each State in which a 

class member resides and the appropriate Federal official, a notice of the proposed settlement 

consisting of,” inter alia, “any proposed or final class action settlement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(4). 

“An order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days 

after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal official and the appropriate State 

official are served with the notice required under subsection (b).” Id. §1715(d). “A class member 

may refuse to comply with and may choose not to be bound by a settlement agreement or consent 

decree in a class action if the class member demonstrates that the notice required under subsection 

Case 3:13-cv-05944-SI Document 50 Filed 09/02/15 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

(b) has not been provided.” Id. §1715(e)(1).

“According to the legislative history, Section 1715(b) was included as a means to 

‘safeguard plaintiff class members’ rights,’ by providing state and federal officials with an 

opportunity to ‘voice concerns if they believe that the class action settlement is not in the best 

interest of their citizens.’” Steinfeld v. Discovery Financial Services, No. C 12-01118 JSW, 2014 

WL 1309352, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (internal citations omitted). Courts have found that 

CAFA’s notice requirements have been substantially complied with when the relevant state and 

federal officials have had 90 days to review the proposed settlement, even when notice was sent 

out late. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972-93 (E.D. Cal. 2012); D.S. 

ex rel. S.S. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 255 F.R.D. 59, 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).

Defendants served the CAFA notice on July 2, 2015; 90 days from that date is September 

30, 2015. Plaintiffs propose proceeding with the hearing as scheduled on September 18, 2015, and, 

if the settlement is to be approved, simply waiting until September 30, 2015 to issue an order to 

that effect. However, the Court finds that the interests of justice would be better served by having 

the fairness hearing after the 90 day period has expired. Accordingly, the Court reschedules the 

hearing for final approval of class settlement to October 2, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

The Court recognizes that the notice sent to class members listed the date of the hearing as 

September 18, 2015. To date, no objections have been made to the proposed settlement. However, 

in the event that any class members or objectors come to the courthouse on September 18, 2015, 

the Court will advise those persons that the hearing has been rescheduled to October 2, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05944-SI Document 50 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2