Jose Urena v. Central California Almond Growers Assn. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE URENA, as an individual, on behalf No. 1:18-cv-00517-NONE-EPG of himself and others similarly situated, 12 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (ECF No. 57) 14 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING 15 GROWERS ASSN., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Jose Urena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), filed 19 the complaint commencing this class-action lawsuit on April 13, 2018. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff 20 filed a motion for final approval of a class-action settlement agreement on January 8, 2021, (ECF 21 No. 52), and a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs concurrently therewith, (ECF No. 52-1). The 22 Court held a hearing on February 5, 2021. On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff Urena filed a 23 supplemental declaration concerning the amount of time he spent on this action. (ECF No. 55). 24 On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel Kelsey M. Szamet (“counsel”) filed a supplemental 25 declaration concerning reimbursement of costs. On March 12, 2021, the Court entered findings 26 and recommendations, recommending that the motion for final approval be granted. (ECF No. 27 57). In its analysis, the court, like the parties, followed the factors the Ninth Circuit set forth in 28 Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003). (See ECF Nos. 52, 57). 1 On June 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit decided Briseno v. Henderson, _ F.3d ___s, 2021 2 | WL 2197968 (9th Cir. June 1, 2021). The court held that consideration of the Staton factors 3 | alone is not enough: district courts must analyze proposed class-action settlements using the 4 | factors set forth in the revised Rule 23(e). Jd. at *8 (“[M]any of the Staton factors fall within the 5 | ambit of the revised Rule 23(e). But Congress provided district courts with new instructions — 6 | such as analyzing the ‘terms of the settlement’ and ‘terms of any proposed award of attorney’s 7 | fees’ — that require them to go beyond our precedent.”). The Court did not do so in its initial 8 | findings and recommendations. It will therefore vacate its initial findings and recommendations. 9 Rule 23(e)(2)(c) requires district courts consider whether “the relief provided for the class 10 | is adequate, taking into account ... any agreement required to be identified under Rule 11 | 23(e)(3)[.]” Rule 23(e)(3) requires parties seeking approval to “file a statement identifying any 12 | agreement made in connection with the proposal.” The court was unable to locate a statement in 13 | the briefing concerning Rule 23(e)(3). 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations entered March 12, 2021 are VACATED; 16 2. Within seven days, the parties shall file a statement providing the information required 17 under Rule 23(e)(3); and 18 3. Within seven days, the parties may elect to file additional briefing, not exceeding ten 19 pages, to address any other issues noted in this order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ June 14, 2021 [see hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28