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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

[CLASS ACTION]

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT AND SETTING 

DATES FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria

Complaint filed: February 21, 2017

Hearing Date: June 21, 2018

Hearing Time: 8:30 AM

Hearing Location: Courtroom 4

AS MODIFIED

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 6
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

ORDER

On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a 

class settlement. Having considered the motion papers and the complete record of this 

action, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court provisionally certifies the 

Settlement Class, which consists of all persons who between February 21, 2013 and 

the date of Preliminary Approval, purchased, in the United States, one or more candy 

products manufactured by Defendant and packaged for sale or resale to consumers in 

an opaque cardboard box (including bag-in-a-box products), including Jujyfruits®, 

Jujubes®, Now and Later®, Lemonhead®, Applehead®, Cherryhead®, Grapehead®, 

RedHots®, Trolli®, Chuckles®, Black Forest®, Jawbuster®, Jawbreaker®, 

Brach’s®, Boston Baked Beans®, Super Bubble®, Rainblo®, Atomic Fireball®, and 

all flavors and varieties of those candies. “Excluded Persons” from the class are: (1) 

the Honorable Vince Chhabria (2) Mediator Martin Quinn; (3) the Honorable William 

Cahill; (4) any member of their immediate family; (5) any government entity, (6) 

Defendant; (7) any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (8) any of 

Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal 

representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (9) counsel for the Parties; and (10) any 

persons who timely opt-out of the Settlement Class.

As set forth below, the Court preliminarily finds and concludes, solely for 

purposes of considering this settlement, that the requirements of Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are conditionally satisfied for certification of the 

Settlement Class to pursue claims for unjust enrichment and the consumer protection 

laws of the fifty states and the District of Columbia (collectively, “states”). Plaintiff 

has met the requirements of Rule 23 for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary approval, including all supporting materials filed concurrently thereto, 

and the briefing and arguments provided by Plaintiff in support of that motion. 

Plaintiff, who resides in San Francisco, California, is typical of consumers around the 

country in that they were all exposed to identical product packaging, which is alleged 

to have been deceptive for identical reasons, and thus, his claims for unjust 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 6
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

ORDER

enrichment and violations of consumer protection statutes “are reasonably coextensive 

with those of absent class members.” Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted).

The Court further preliminarily finds, solely for purposes of considering this 

settlement, that the Class Representative and Class Counsel fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the absent Settlement Class Members. Thus, the 

Court conditionally designates Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Settlement Class Counsel 

and Thomas Iglesias as the Class Representative for purposes of this settlement. The 

Court designates, and approves, Digital Settlement Group, LLC (“DSG”) to serve as 

Claim Administrator.

While this Court must consider differences in state laws as part of the 

predominance inquiry, this Court need not consider “whether the case, if tried, would 

present intractable management problems, for the proposal is that there be no trial.” In 

re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 881 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Hyundai”)

(quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 624, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 138 L. 

Ed. 2d 689 (1997)). Plaintiff has submitted extensive briefing and supplemental 

materials in support of his motion for preliminary approval identifying the similarities 

and differences among state laws and setting forth why the common issues 

predominate and why the differences are immaterial to this litigation. For those 

reasons, this Court finds that common issues predominate with respect to the 

Settlement Class.

Pursuant to the stipulation filed on May 10, 2018, the Court further notes that 

Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend the first amended complaint, 

which sets forth a fourth cause of action of unjust enrichment for a nationwide class 

and clarifies the proposed class definition; and that in the event that Preliminary 

Approval is denied, Final Approval is denied, or a remitter is issued reversing an 

award of Final Approval, or the Settlement Agreement otherwise is terminated, the 

second amended complaint will be deemed withdrawn, and the newly added unjust 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 6
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

ORDER

enrichment claim will be considered as dismissed without prejudice, and the first 

amended complaint (Dkt. 18) will be the operative complaint in this matter. 

Since the Settlement Agreement is within the range of reasonableness and 

possible final approval, notice shall be provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to 

the Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Notice Plan. The Claim Administrator 

shall provide notice in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

Plaintiff’s proposed Long Form Notice and Short Form Notice shall specify that 

the requirement to submit a written objection may be waived upon a showing of good 

cause.

A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court at 10:00 a.m. on 

October 18, 2018, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 

94102, to address: (a) whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved as 

fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether the Final Approval Order should be 

entered, and (b) whether Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a 

payment to the Class Representative should be approved. In addition, this Court sets 

the following dates:

Deadline for Claim Administrator to cause notice to 

be published in Soap Opera Digest per the Notice Plan

August 8, 2018

issue

Deadline for Claim Administrator to cause notice to 

be published in Life & Style per the Notice Plan August 8, 2018issue

Deadline for Claim Administrator to cause notice to 

be published in National Enquirer per the Notice Plan August 13, 2018issue

Deadline for Claim Administrator to cause online 

notice to be published on internet sites per the Notice

Plan

July 21, 2018

issue

Deadline to file motion for attorneys’ fees, costs and 

incentive awards September 6, 2018

Deadline to file motion for final approval; response to 

objections September 20, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 6
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

5

ORDER

If the settlement is not approved by the Court or the settlement is terminated 

or fails to become effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, then the Settling Parties will be restored to their respective positions in 

the Action as of the date the Motion for Preliminary Approval is filed. In such event, 

the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement will have no further force and 

effect with respect to the Settling Parties and will not be used in this Action or in any 

other proceeding for any purpose, and any Judgment or order entered by the Court in 

accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement will be treated as vacated. 

The Parties will meet and confer regarding a proposed class certification schedule, 

and will submit to the Court a proposed schedule, or competing alternative schedules 

if they cannot reach agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this 

Paragraph shall affect the obligations in Paragraph 9.1.1 and Exhibit B of the 

Settlement Agreement, which shall survive non-approval of the Settlement 

Deadline for Claim Administrator to submit a 

declaration to the Court attesting to the number of 

impressions delivered and the number of click- throughs to the Settlement Website

September 20, 2018

Claim deadline September 20, 2018

Opt-outs (date of online submission, or if mailed, date of receipt, not postmarking) September 20, 2018

Objections, Requests to Appear (filing date, not 

postmarking) September 20, 2018

Replies in support of final approval and motion for 

attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards; response to objections

October 4, 2018

Deadline for Plaintiffs/Claims Administrator to file 

list of optouts, objections, and supporting 

documentation with the Court

October 4, 2018

Deadline for the Claim Administrator to provide a declaration to the Court regarding the number and 

dollar amount of claims received to date

October 4, 2018

Final approval hearing October 18, 2018

25

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 5 of 6
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

6

ORDER

Agreement, termination of the Settlement, and/or failure of the Settlement to become 

effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

The Court has considered Exhibits A through E to the Settlement Agreement

and approves and incorporates them into this Order.

This Order shall not be construed as an admission or concession by Defendant 

of the truth of any allegations made by the Plaintiff or of liability or fault of any kind.

The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in this 

Order without further notice to the Settlement Class Members. The Final Approval 

Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the Settlement Class 

Members, be continued by Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ _______________________________

Honorable Vince Chhabria

United States District Court Judge

June 26, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 80 Filed 06/26/18 Page 6 of 6