Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05296/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05296-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Vinole
Plaintiff
World Savings, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND VINOLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WORLD SAVINGS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05296 JSW

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’

JOINT MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Now before the Court is the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action

settlement. Having considered the parties’ arguments, relevant legal authority, and having had

the benefit of oral argument, the Court DENIES the parties’ motion without prejudice to the

parties filing a renewed motion with additional authority and evidence in accordance with this

Order. The Court finds the documents submitted by the parties to be inadequate for the

following reasons:

(1) When, as here, the parties enter into a settlement agreement before the Court has

certified the class, the court “must pay undiluted, even heightened, attention to

class certification requirements....” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,

1019 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotes and citation omitted); see also Ortiz v.

Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 848-49 (1999) (“When a district court, as here,

certifies for class action settlement only, the moment of certification requires

heightened attention.”). The parties did not provide the Court with any argument 

Case 3:06-cv-05296-JSW Document 44 Filed 01/29/08 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

or authority demonstrating that certification of the proposed class would be

proper. In light of the heightened scrutiny the Court must give to the issue of

certification, the Court finds the parties’ papers insufficient to demonstrate that

certification would be proper.

(2) Under the parties’ stipulated agreement, the deadline for purported class

members to mail in claim forms is just thirty days after the deadline for the

claims administrator to mail out class notices. The Court finds that this notice

period is too short. Moreover, the Court is concerned with the fact that the

parties seek to bind class members to the broad waiver provisions of the

settlement agreement, regardless of whether such individuals receive actual

notice. The Supreme Court has held that notice is sufficient where the mail is

delivered and those that could not been delivered were excluded from the class. 

See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472, U.S. 797, 812-13 (1985). “Some

caselaw allows mailed notice to be deemed accurate even where it is not

delivered correctly but there must be a showing that the proposed address list is

reasonably accurate. Otherwise, notice by publication may be necessary.” 

Kakani v. Oracle Corp., 2007 WL 1792774, *10 n.5 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007).

(3) Whether to reward the named representatives for their efforts is within the

Court’s discretion. See, e.g., Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp.

294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citations omitted). Courts may consider the

following criteria in determining whether to provide incentive awards: “(1) the

risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise;

(2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class

representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class

representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit (or

lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation.” Id.

(citations omitted). The parties failed to provide in their papers any evidence

demonstrating the proposed incentive awards are justified based on these factors. 

Case 3:06-cv-05296-JSW Document 44 Filed 01/29/08 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

Moreover, the Court notes that at the hearing, counsel argued that the incentive

awards were justified, at least in part, by the fact that the named representatives

were being compensated for agreeing to a broad release, including unknown

claims, to which the other class members would not be subject. However, a

review of the stipulated settlement agreement provides that all class members

would be subject to the release of unknown claims. (Stipulation, §§ 1.36, 1.45.)

The parties shall have until March 7, 2008 to file a renewed motion for preliminary

approval of class action settlement to address the Court’s concerns.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05296-JSW Document 44 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 3