Ramirez v. Merrill Gardens, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA BUSTOS RAMIREZ, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00542-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 12 DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF v. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 13 MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, (ECF Nos. 28, 39, 44) 14 Defendant. DEADLINE: FOURTEEN DAYS 15 16 On January 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action 17 settlement and certification of the settlement class. (ECF No. 28.) The Court held a hearing on 18 the matter and ordered supplemental briefing on various issues. (ECF No. 39.) Following an 19 extension of time, on December 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing and an amended 20 settlement agreement. (ECF No. 44.) One aspect of the settlement agreement that was changed 21 was the cy pres recipient. (See ECF No. 44-1 at 3.) In the initial motion, the Plaintiffs provided 22 declarations attesting that they and each counsel’s firms each had no relationship or interest to 23 the previous cy pres recipient. The Plaintiffs have now chosen a different proposed cy pres 24 recipient, however, have not provided similar declarations attesting to the fact that the parties nor 25 any counsel have a relationship to the cy pres recipient. 26 The Court shall require all parties and counsel to provide such declarations, including 27 Defendant and their counsel, in line with applicable law. See Rosales v. El Rancho Farms, No. 1:09-CV-00707-AWI, 2015 WL 4460635, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2015) (noting courts are “are 1 | wary of distributing cy pres funds to organizations that have a close relationship with class 2 | counsel given the appearance of a conflict of interest.” (quoting Weeks v. Kellogg Co., No. CV 3 | 09-08102 MMM RZX, 2013 WL 6531177, at *19 n.102 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013)); In re 4 | Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig., 869 F.3d 737, 744 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Of course it makes 5 | sense that the district court should examine any claimed relationship between the cy pres 6 | recipient and the parties or their counsel. But a prior relationship or connection between the two, 7 | without more, is not an absolute disqualifier. Rather, a number of factors, such as the nature of 8 | the relationship, the timing and recency of the relationship, the significance of dealings between 9 | the recipient and the party or counsel, the circumstances of the selection process, and the merits 10 | of the recipient play into the analysis.”), vacated and remanded sub nom. Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. 11 | Ct. 1041, 203 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2019); City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Co., No. CV 16-3493 12 | FMO (ASX), 2020 WL 10540857, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) (“The parties shall also 13 | identify any relationship they or their counsel have with the proposed cy pres recipient.”); 14 | Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038—40 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘When selection of cy pres 15 | beneficiaries is not tethered to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class 16 | members, the selection process may answer to the whims and self interests of the parties, their 17 | counsel, or the court.”). 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of entry of this order, 19 | the parties shall file supplemental declarations in line with the legal standards above.! 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 22 | Dated: _December 14, 2023 _ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 | ! The Court provides fourteen (14) days due to the proximity of the holidays, however, if provided earlier, the Court 28 | is prepared to issue an order adjudicating this motion forthwith.