Brooks v. Pressed Juicery, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on No. 2:19-cv-01687-KJM-CKD behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER CONDITIONALLY B Plaintiffs, GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE 14 v. AND CLAIM FORMS 15 PRESSED JUICERY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 This issue is before the court on the parties’ joint request for approval of notice and claim 19 | form under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This is the second such request for approval of 20 | notice to the class, the first of which the court approved. See generally Mot. for Prelim. 21 | Approval, ECF No. 19; Order, ECF No. 24. For the following reasons, the court conditionally 22 | grants the parties’ motion. 23 | I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS 24 Plaintiff Valerie Brooks alleges that defendant Pressed Juicery, Inc. violated the 25 | Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA), and California’s Unruh Civil Rights 26 | Act, California Civil Code § 51 (UCRA), by not maintaining its website in a manner that allowed 27 | access to those with visual disabilities, see Compl., ECF No. 1. In the fall of 2020, the court 28 | granted the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and 1 conditional certification of settlement classes, as well as the parties’ proposed method for 2 notifying the class. See generally Order. At the February 2022 Final Fairness Hearing, objector 3 Timothy Elder expressed concerns with the substance of the settlement, the method used for 4 notice, and the claim form requirements. See Minutes for Final Fairness Hearing, ECF No. 40. 5 The court ordered the parties to submit a revised notice and claim form for approval no later than 6 March 9, 2022; details of the parties’ revised claims process no later than March 17, 2022; and a 7 motion for final approval no later than April 29, 2022. ECF No. 42. 8 The changes to the parties’ notice form include modifications to the section describing the 9 benefits of the proposed settlement. See generally Mot. for Prelim. Approval, Ex. A; Amended 10 Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, ECF No. 26; Joint Request for Approval, ECF 11 No. 43-1.1 The form now includes a section describing the settlement fund that will be paid out 12 to class members who make timely claims. Joint Request for Approval at 2c. Class members are 13 also now permitted to make a claim by presenting proof of their attempt to use the website or 14 represent under penalty of perjury that they attempted to do so. Id. The revised notice also 15 includes a link to a website, pressedjuiceryadsettlement.com, where potential class members may 16 submit claims in order to receive a cash payment from the settlement fund. Id. at 3. The website 17 must be fully operational and accessible promptly upon the court’s issuance of this order. 18 The claim form, see Joint Request for Approval, ECF No. 43-2, clearly states the steps 19 claimants must take to submit a form. The court notes that “step 4” on the claim form states it 20 needs to be postmarked no later than “November 29, 2021.” The court presumes this is an error. 21 The parties should correct the date to match the first date listed at the beginning of the form. 22 Courts have discretion in requiring notice of settlement claims certified under Rule 23 23(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(c)(2)(A) (“the court may direct appropriate notice to the 24 class”). Courts have found notice satisfactory if it “generally describes the terms of the 1 The court notes the parties have not addressed two of Mr. Elder’s concerns. First, Mr. Elder was concerned that the settlement had no termination date yet contained a broad release clause. Second, Mr. Elder objected to the exclusion of third-party content from any remediation requirement. Mr. Elder will have the opportunity to raise these and any other objections at the Final Fairness Hearing, which has been continued to May 6, 2022. See ECF No. 40. 1 settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come 2 forward and be heard.” Churchill Village LLC v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 3 2004) (quoting Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980)). 4 “Settlement notices are supposed to present information about a proposed settlement neutrally, 5 simply, and understandably.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 The court approves of the modifications made to the notice, which are adequate for notifying 7 class members of the existence and details of the settlement, as well as the claim form itself. 8 Requiring potential class members to postmark claim forms by April 1, 2022, 9 approximately two weeks after the court’s approval of the notice, does not provide sufficient time 10 to respond however. The court thus orders the parties to change the April 1, 2022 deadline for 11 postmarking forms to April 29, 2022. 12 II. CONCLUSION 13 The joint request for approval of notice and claim forms is granted, conditioned on the 14 parties (1) ensuring the website for submitting claims is functioning promptly following the 15 filed date of this order, and (2) changing all postmark deadline dates in both the notice and 16 form regarding claims to April 29, 2022. 17 This order resolves ECF No. 43. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: March 14, 2022.