Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALICIA ARREDONDO, No. 1:18-cv-01737-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC SPECIALTY FINANCE, INC., dba Check (Doc. No. 44) 15 ‘N Go of California, 16 Defendant. 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Alicia Arredondo’s motion for preliminary 19 approval of the parties’ class action settlement. (Doc. No. 44.) The parties are directed to file 20 supplemental briefing or declarations addressing the following issues: 21 1. A clarification as to the correct class period. Plaintiff’s pending motion for 22 preliminary approval, the proposed notice to class members, and the second 23 amended complaint identify a class period of February 25, 2018 through 24 December 31, 2020, (Doc. Nos. 44-1 at 1; 44-2 at ¶ 21; 44-4 at 1; 48 at ¶ 37), but 25 the parties’ proposed settlement agreement attached as an exhibit to the pending 26 motion provides for a class period of “February 25, 2018 through the date of 27 Preliminary Approval.” (Doc. No. 44-3 at 2.) 28 ///// 1 2. An explanation of and the authority supporting the breadth of the class member’s 2 release, as provided in the parties’ proposed settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 44-3 3 at 16.) In particular, the settlement agreement provides for the release of claims 4 that are not asserted in the second amended complaint or even mentioned in 5 plaintiff’s pending motion and that do not appear to have been litigated in this 6 action, including: all claims for “expense reimbursements” and “failure to provide 7 suitable seating,” and claims under two regulations implementing the Fair Labor 8 Standards Act. (Doc. No. 44-4 at 16.) In this regard, the court has concerns about 9 the apparent overbreadth of this release. See Gonzalez v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, 10 LLC, No. 16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT, 2018 WL 4388425, at *4-6, *10-12 (E.D. Cal. 11 Sept. 13, 2018); Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 959, 12 967–969 (N.D. Cal. 2019). 13 3. The court also is concerned that the proposed class notice may not sufficiently 14 inform putative class members as to the claims that are being released under the 15 proposed settlement agreement. To address this concern, the parties shall file a 16 proposed amended notice that clearly identifies the claims that are being released. 17 (Doc. No. 44-4.) For example, on page five of the class notice under, “WHAT 18 AM I GIVING UP TO GET A PAYMENT?”, the notice lists only the claims that 19 are asserted in the complaint. Given that the release of claims is not limited to the 20 claims brought in the second amended complaint, the notice should reference the 21 settlement agreement’s release provision and provide a link to the settlement 22 agreement so that a class member can view the release, including the location 23 within the settlement agreement where the release provision can be found. (Id. at 24 5.) 25 4. Next, the court is concerned that the parties did not comply with the Class Action 26 Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) notice requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1715. In actions 27 subject to CAFA—as plaintiff’s counsel contends this one is (Docs. No. 44-1 at 7; 28 44-2 at ¶ 16)—the defendant must serve notice of the proposed settlement on 1 appropriate state and federal officials, and the settlement may not be finally 2 approved until 90 days thereafter. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), (d). 3 Accordingly, the parties shall file a supplemental brief or declarations addressing these 4 | issues with fourteen days from the date of service of this order and are directed to attach to their 5 | supplemental briefing as exhibits any proposed amended settlement agreement and/or class 6 | notice. 7 | ORDERED. a 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ November 23, 2021 See 1" S98 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28