Judge: Glenda Sanders, Case: 2013-00649415, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling
The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is CONTINUED to January 26, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in department CX101 to permit the parties to respond to the following issues. A supplemental briefing shall be filed at least 9 days before the continued hearing and respond where necessary to the points raised below:
1. What is the status of the individuals who opted out but are not part of the Class? Have these individuals been notified that they do not fit within the Class definition, and if so, have they provided any response?
2. It appears that as of December 15, 2022, 19 Prior Owner Verification Forms have been submitted. ROA 439, Supp. Snow Decl., ¶7. Class counsel represents that as of November 22, 2022, there have not been any dispute requiring Ross Feinberg’s adjudication. ROA 425, Kellner Decl., ¶42. Is this still the case?
3. The litigation costs requested include charges for meals and local hotel/travel expenses, which are generally not allowed. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776.) Why are these costs necessary, reasonable and recoverable?
4. The proposed order is to be revised consistent with the issues addressed above.
5. In paragraph 9, the proposed order states that the Settlement was entered into "in good faith pursuant to and within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6." This phrase was included in the proposed order granting preliminary approval but later removed and not included in the final preliminary approval order as there was a lack of any argument to support this finding. See ROA 394, 7/29/22 Minute Order; and ROA 399, Preliminary Approval Order. Why should this phrase be included in the final approval order?
6. Paragraph 12 of the proposed order appears to modify paragraph 3.1.8 in the Settlement by increasing the time the Settlement Administrator may be paid and adding a requirement that the Settlement Administrator obtain approval from the Court before distributing payment to itself. Why has this changed?
7. Paragraph 14 of the proposed order modifies the release in the Settlement. For example, paragraph 14 in the proposed Order omits “design professionals” as part of the Released Parties as defined in paragraph 1.37 of the Settlement. The releasing parties as set forth in paragraph 5.1 of the Settlement is also broader than releasing parties in paragraph 14 of the proposed order. These differences invite confusion regarding the release particularly when considered with paragraph 16 of the proposed order.
8. In paragraph 16, line 14, "Settlement" should be inserted between "Participating" and "Class".
9. How will notice of the judgment will be provided? The manner of providing notice of the judgment should be included in the proposed Order.
10. Should the Settlement be approved, the Court will hold a status conference for a final accounting. Counsel shall submit a final report at least 10 days prior to that conference regarding the status of the settlement administration. Counsel should include a date for the final accounting in the proposed order. The Court holds final accounting hearing on Fridays at 9:00 am. The final accounting should occur after the deadline for class members to cash their checks. The final report must include all information necessary for the Court to determine the total amount actually paid to class members and any amounts tendered to the State Controller's Office under Unclaimed Property law.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.