Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04050/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04050-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TImothy P. Rumberger
Plaintiff
Sprint Corporation
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

TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SPRINT CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04050 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 22, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Exhibits B through E attached to the Declaration of Stephanie Koetting are not legible.

The parties are directed to file legible copies of these exhibits and to provide chambers copies

by no later than 8:30 a.m. on June 21, 2007. The parties’ proposed notice incorrectly states that

the fairness hearing will be held in the courtroom of Ronald M. White.

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 58 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the class

settlement. The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

(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 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, how can the Court approve certification

for settlement purposes on this record? 

(2) The settlement does not include any injunctive relief. Does Sprint continue to describe

the surcharge on its calling cards and advertisements for the calling cards in the same

manner that Plaintiff finds objectionable?

(3) The parties propose publishing notice of the settlement one time in four regional

newspapers. The proposed class consists of individuals who purchased Sprint calling

cards across California over a six year period. Do the parties have any authority to

support the proposition that their suggested method of notice to reach this proposed

class is the best notice practicable. See Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453 (9th Cir.

1994) (“it would be error to rely solely on notice by publication”).

(a) Does Sprint know the actual addresses for any of the proposed class members?

(b) Is Sprint going to post the notice on its internet website?

(c) Have the parties considered publicizing the notice in a national publication in an

effort to reach proposed class members who do not live in California?

(4) What is the estimated size of the proposed class?

(5) Plaintiff states in his motion that “Sprint has made available to Plaintiff’s counsel

documentation sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate a minimal amount of damage to

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 58 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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 Members, if any, and over a very limited time frame.” (Mot. at 12) (emphasis

added).

(a) In light of Sprint’s documentation, does Plaintiff still contend that he has

incurred any damages?

(b) Did Sprint’s documentation demonstrate that the amount of damages is limited

or that the merits are questionable, or both?

(6) Is the proposed settlement a coupon-settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1712? 

(7) Have the parties provided the notice to appropriate federal and state officials as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 1715?

(8) The Settlement Agreement provides that claims are timely submitted if they are

postmarked by no later than the expiration of the claim deadline, which is set for

November 15, 2007. The Settlement Agreement further provides that if the Claims

Administrator gives notice of a deficient claim, the class member shall have fifteen days

from the date of the Claim Administrator’s written notice to cure the deficiency. The

parties set a deadline of November 30, 2007 for curing timely but defective claims. 

How will class members be treated who file timely but defective claims postmarked

November 15, 2007, but received several days later, and thus, not given notice to cure

the deficiencies until November 20, 2007? In other words, would their claims be

redeemed if such class members cure their defective claims by December 5, 2007, which

is within 15 days of the notice to cure, but after the deadline of November 30, 2007?

(9) The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff’s counsel will submit an application to

the Court for an award of settlement fees and for the proposed incentive award to be

paid to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff’s motion does not address the deadline for such

applications and appears to argue that the proposed attorney’s fees and incentive award

should be paid. Are the parties seeking to have the attorney’s fees and incentive award

approved in conjunction with the proposed settlement, or does Plaintiff intend to submit

a further application for such fee and award?

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 58 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(10) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: June 21, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 58 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 4