Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., 13-cv-03476-YGR. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180323b53
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES RECIPIENTS; DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSIONS Re: Dkt. No. 131 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for an order designating cy pres recipients. (Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiffs propose to allocate 50% of the remaining settlement funds to the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (the "ILEP"). Plaintiffs indicate that next year a partner at Pomerantz LLP will serve as President of the
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES RECIPIENTS; DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSIONS Re: Dkt. No. 131 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for an order designating cy pres recipients. (Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiffs propose to allocate 50% of the remaining settlement funds to the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (the "ILEP"). Plaintiffs indicate that next year a partner at Pomerantz LLP will serve as President of the I..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES RECIPIENTS; DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 131
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for an order designating cy pres recipients. (Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiffs propose to allocate 50% of the remaining settlement funds to the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (the "ILEP"). Plaintiffs indicate that next year a partner at Pomerantz LLP will serve as President of the ILEP. The record reflects that Pomerantz LLP represents plaintiffs in this matter.
The Court requires plaintiffs to propose a cy pre recipient which has no connection to the law firms appearing in this matter. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file a revised motion for an order designating cy pres recipients by April 23, 2018.
In addition, Counsel shall provide the information listed below by April 23, 2018. The information should be provided in a summary chart format, preferably similar to that shown in Appendix A hereto from William B. Rubenstein, The Fairness Hearing: Adversarial and Regulatory Approaches, 53 UCLA L. REV. 1435, 1460 (2006).1
• Total settlement amount;
• Total amount of claims paid, expressed in dollars and as a percentage of the total settlement amount;
• The number of class members who received notice;
• The number of actual claims, expressed as a total number and as a percentage of the number who received notice;
• The number of opt-outs, expressed as a total number and as a percentage of the number who received notice;
• The attorney fees awarded, expressed as a total dollar figure, a percentage of the total settlement amount, and a percentage of the funds distributed to class members;
• The attorney costs and expenses awarded, expressed as a total dollar figure, a percentage of the total settlement amount, and a percentage of the funds distributed to class members;
• The total class administration costs, expressed as a total dollar figure and a percentage of the total settlement amount; and
• The residual funds, if any, remaining, expressed as a total dollar figure and a percentage of the total settlement amount.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Appendix A
FootNotes
1. Counsel are referred to further discussion on these issues in Nicholas M. Pace and William Rubenstein, "Shedding Light on Outcomes in Class Actions," in CONFIDENTIALITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND THE U.S. CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, Ch. 2 (Joseph W. Doherty, Robert T. Reville, and Laura Zakaras, eds., Oxford University Press, 2008).
See also In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-md-2420-YGR, Dkt. Nos. 1981 and 1988.
Source: Leagle
