Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02003/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02003-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ijeoma Esomonu
Plaintiff
Omnicare, Inc.
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IJEOMA ESOMONU,

Plaintiff,

v.

OMNICARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG 

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 59

On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff Ijeoma Esomonu filed a motion for preliminary approval of 

class action settlement. Dkt. No. 39. At the August 18, 2016, hearing on the motion for 

preliminary approval, the Court expressed concerns about several of the settlement terms and 

requested supplemental briefing from the parties. Dkt. No. 47.

The parties submitted their supplemental briefing on October 20, 2016, representing that 

they would modify subsection 1 of the class release to read:

An alleged violation of any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681, et seq., the California Consumer Credit 

Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section 1785, et seq., 

the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, 

California Civil Code section 1786, et seq., California Business and 

Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any comparable 

provision of federal, state or local law in any way relating to or 

arising out of the facts alleged in the operative complaint, including 

the procurement of, use of, disclosure of intent to procure, or 

authorization to procure or use a consumer report, investigative 

consumer report, credit check, background check, criminal history 

report, reference check or similar report.

Dkt. No. 55 at 5:1-10.

On November 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the amended motion for preliminary 

approval of class action settlement. Dkt. No. 57. The Court again expressed concern that the 

Case 4:15-cv-02003-HSG Document 60 Filed 11/23/16 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

modified class release was broader than the factual predicate alleged by Plaintiff in the first 

amended complaint (“FAC”), and requested supplemental briefing on the issue.

The parties submitted joint supplemental briefing on November 18, 2016, and agreed to 

further narrow the class release. See Dkt. No. 59 (“Joint Briefing”). Specifically, the parties 

agreed to eliminate subsection 2 of the class release but maintained that subsection 1 sufficiently 

mirrored the factual predicate alleged in the FAC. Id. However, subsection 1 of the class release 

included in the Joint Briefing does not reflect the version of subsection 1 submitted in the October 

20, 2016, briefing. Compare id. at 2:17-25 with Dkt. No. 55 at 5:1-10. As phrased in the Joint 

Briefing, subsection 1 references additional adverse action requirements and contains phrases 

potentially broadening the release. See Joint Briefing at 2:17-25.

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties to submit a joint supplemental brief of no 

more than two pages, confirming that the final proposed class release is subsection 1 of the release 

that the parties presented to the Court in the October 2016 supplemental briefing. The parties 

must submit their joint supplemental brief by December 2, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02003-HSG Document 60 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2