ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DANA M. SABRAW, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class settlement agreement. The Court has reviewed the parties' joint motion and all documents submitted in support thereof, as well as the record in this case.

Although the settlement appears fair, reasonable and adequate in most respects, the Court has some concern about the cy pres component of the settlement. The Ninth Circuit requires "that there be `a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries.'" Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011)). "A cy pres award must be `guided by (1) the objectives of the underlying statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class members,' and must not benefit a group `too remote from the plaintiff class[.]'" Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the Court certified a class on Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose of the FDCPA is "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). Here, the parties selected Homeboy Industries as the proposed cy pres recipient, but they fail to explain the purpose of this organization and whether it is related to the claims certified for class treatment in this case. Absent that information, the proposed cy pres recipient does not appear to meet the Ninth Circuit's standards, which precludes the Court from finding the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.