Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00525-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America N.A.
Defendant
Ivan Dexter Pointer
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVAN DEXTER POINTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA 

N.A., BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL 

ASSOC., and DOES 1 through 50 

inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Ivan Pointer moves for preliminary approval of a class settlement and for 

provisional certification of the class. ECF No. 38. The motion is unopposed. The court held a 

hearing on September 25, 2015. Matthew Righetti appeared for Pointer, and Regina Musolino 

appeared for the defendants (together, BANA). 

In light of the discussion at hearing, the court requests Pointer address the 

following questions, raised at hearing: 

(1) What is the relationship between this case and Pineda v. Bank of America, 

cited in the pending motion? See Mot. Prelim. Approv. 6, ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/01/15 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

(2) How exactly did the parties arrive at the two-thirds, one-third division of 

settlement funds for the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass? 

(3) Counsel reported BANA’s bonus practices changed in January 2013. What 

evidence shows (a) Pointer is likely to be approved as a class representative for the periods both 

before and after January 2013, and (b) the proposed class definition will likely remain unchanged 

despite the January 2013 change in practices? 

(4) What evidence shows that differences between class members, whether derived 

from the January 2013 change or elsewhere, do not give some putative class members a greater 

incentive to settle than others, for example because some putative class members have a stronger 

case than others? 

A supplemental declaration addressing these questions and attaching any relevant 

evidence shall be filed no more than fourteen days after this order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 1, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2