Westfall v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Robert Westfall, et al., No. 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The parties settled this wage-and-hour class action lawsuit on August 7, 2020. See 18 | generally Stip. of Class Action and PAGA Settlement (“Stip.”), ECF No. 98. The court 19 | preliminarily approved the settlement on September 16, 2021. See Order, ECF No. 104. Two 20 | days before the final approval hearing, Andre Bernstein and Richard Martin filed objections with 21 | this court. See generally Objections, ECF No. 121. They provided evidence of their timely 22 | submitted objections, see Proofs of Delivery, Lesches Decl. Ex. D, ECF No. 121-7 (confirmation 23 | emails showing objections were “delivered” and “available” on April 4 and April 8, 2022), which 24 | the settlement administrator did not report to the court, see Neylon Decl. § 10, ECF No. 119-1 25 | (class administrator reporting he “received no requests for opt-outs/objections” as of May 17, 26 | 2022). The objectors also express concern that the settlement would waive valuable claims 27 | without appropriate consideration. See Objections at 15—21. The objectors thus request 28 | discovery before this court finally approves the parties’ settlement agreement. See id. at 9. 1 After careful consideration, the court grants the objectors’ request. There have been 2 numerous problems since this court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, the most 3 concerning of which involve the settlement administrator. As noted, the administrator reported 4 that he “received no requests for opt-outs/objections” as of May 17, 2022. Neylon Decl. ¶ 10; 5 accord Am. Mem. at 8, ECF No. 119 (“No objections or opt-outs were received.”). But the 6 objectors have presented evidence that they submitted timely objections and that the administrator 7 received those objections in early April 2022. See Proofs of Delivery. The administrator now 8 submits he received the objections on May 24, 2022—the day before objectors filed objections 9 with this court. See Suppl. Neylon Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 127-2. The administrator implicitly 10 suggests the delay was the courier’s fault. See id. ¶ 6. He has tried, with no luck, contacting the 11 Post Office supervisor “to review the certified mail pickup records to determine when the 12 Objections were retrieved by its courier.” Id. He also says his company audited its 13 correspondence “out of an abundance of caution” and found two timely exclusion requests that 14 were “misfiled” and thus not reported to the court. Id. ¶ 7. 15 The administrator’s errors are not limited to his representations to this court, as there have 16 been other issues since preliminary approval. First, the administrator mailed notice packets that 17 provided only twenty-two days to opt out or object to the settlement. See Joint Stip. ¶ 3, ECF No. 18 108; contra Stip. ¶ 2.7(a)–(c) (noting class members may object or opt out with written notice to 19 the class administrator within 45 days from the date the notice is mailed). Second, when the 20 administrator mailed a revised notice packet, he once again failed to give class members forty- 21 five days to object or opt out. See Settlement Agreement at 11, ECF No. 119-1 (forty-fifth days 22 to object or opt out was Sunday, April 3, 2022); Riddle v. Atkins & Ogle L. Offs., LC, No. 19- 23 0249, 2020 WL 1303939, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 26, 2020) (extending, during preliminary 24 approval, opt-out and objection date one day because deadline fell on a Sunday). Third, Objector 25 Martin submits the administrator sent his notice packet to the wrong address for Martin despite 26 having his correct address on file. See Martin Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 121-3. Fourth, the 27 administrator did not submit his declaration to this court until four days before the final approval 28 ///// 1 | hearing; class counsel therefore relied solely on information in the administrator’s “dashboard” in 2 | moving for final approval. See Mem. Final Approval at 7 n.1, ECF No. 116. 3 On a separate note, the parties’ failure to notify this court of Objector Martin’s seemingly 4 | related case against defendant Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation also raises concerns. 5 | See Case No. 2:21-cv-01049-MCE-DB. Despite Martin’s conspicuousness as a potential 6 | objector, the parties did not notify the court of Martin’s lawsuit. Contra Local Rule 123(b) 7 | (‘Counsel who has reason to believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to 8 | another action on file... shall promptly file in each action and serve on all parties in each action 9 | a Notice of Related Cases.”). This court now will relate that separate case, in the interests of 10 | judicial efficiency, issuing a separate order to that effect. 1] Given the issues described above, the court finds it does not have sufficient facts to 12 | intelligently approve the settlement agreement; the court thus grants the objectors’ request for 13 | discovery. The objectors are entitled to discovery related to (1) why objections and opt-outs were 14 | not reported to the court, (2) why the Martin lawsuit was not reported to the court as a related 15 | case, (3) whether notices were mailed properly, (4) whether there are other unreported objections 16 | and/or opt-outs, and (5) whether the settlement waives valuable claims unfairly or without 17 | adequate consideration. Discovery shall be completed by October 7, 2022. Objectors shall file 18 | their response to plaintiffs’ renewed motion for final approval by October 21, 2022. Plaintiffs 19 | shall file their reply by October 28, 2022. The final approval hearing is continued to 20 | November 4, 2022. 21 This order resolves ECF No. 121. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 | DATED: August 16, 2022. (] 24 LM | /YUA ( X_9 35 CHIEF ONT} ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE