Settlement Terms, As Approved by Venus’S Counsel and Class Counsel, Subject to Approval by The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page1 of 29 1 LEXINGTON LAW GROUP Mark N. Todzo, State Bar No. 168389 2 Abigail Blodgett, State Bar No. 278813 503 Divisadero Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 4 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 HALUNEN LAW Melissa W. Wolchansky (pro hac vice pending) 7 Charles D. Moore (pro hac vice pending) 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 1650 8 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 9 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 [email protected] 10 [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 REBEKAH BAHARESTAN and JENA Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MCINTYRE, on behalf of themselves and all 17 others similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 18 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 19 v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 20 Date: November 3, 2015 VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., dba EARTH Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 FRIENDLY PRODUCTS, INC., Location: Courtroom E Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Page 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ....................................................................................... vi 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1 4 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2 6 I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND.........................................................2 7 II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT .....................................................................................5 8 A. Venus Must Change the Labeling and Marketing 9 of the Earth Friendly Products ................................................................................5 10 B. Venus Must Remove MIT from the Dishmate Products and Strive to Remove MIT from All the Products ...................................................6 11 C. Venus must Contribute a Substantial Sum to a Settlement 12 Fund to Compensate Those Persons Allegedly Harmed by Its Allegedly Deceptive Labeling, Advertising, And Marketing 13 Practices ...................................................................................................................7 14 D. The Parties Stipulate To Class Certification For Settlement Purposes ....................8 15 E. Plaintiffs will Submit an Application to the Court For Payment of Plaintiffs' Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and 16 Litigation Costs, and Service Incentive Awards to the Plaintiffs From the Claim Fund ...............................................................................................8 17 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................9 18 I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 19 OF THE SETTLEMENT .....................................................................................................9 20 A. The Applicable Legal Standard ...............................................................................9 21 B. The Settlement is the Product of Serious, Informed, and Arm's-Length Negotiations ....................................................................................10 22 C. The Settlement has No "Obvious Deficiencies," and Treats No 23 Members of the Class Preferentially ......................................................................11 24 D. The Settlement Is Reasonable and Falls Within The Range Of Possible Approval .............................................................................................12 25 II. PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IS 26 APPROPRIATE .................................................................................................................13 27 28 i Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page3 of 29 A. The Criteria For Class Certification Under Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied ...................14 1 1. Joinder Of All Members Is Impracticable .................................................14 2 2. Common Issues Of Law And Fact Exist ...................................................14 3 3. The Named Plaintiffs' Claims are Typical of the 4 Settlement Class Claims ............................................................................15 5 4. The Named Plaintiffs And Their Counsel Will Adequately Represent The Proposed Class ...................................................................16 6 B. The Proposed Settlement Class Meets The Requirements Of 7 Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) .....................................................................................17 8 III. THE PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS 9 OF DUE PROCESS ...........................................................................................................19 10 A. The Proposed Method of Notice is Appropriate ....................................................19 11 B. The Contents of the Proposed Notice are Adequate ..............................................20 12 IV. SCHEDULING A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING IS APPROPRIATE ........................21 13 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................21 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page4 of 29 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 4 252 F.R.D. 652 (E.D. Cal. 2008). ..........................................................................10, 11, 12 5 Alvarado Partners, L.P. v. Mehta, 723 F. Supp. 540 (D.C. Colo. 1989). .................................................................................13 6 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 7 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...........................................................................................................18 8 Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-02134-H-DHB, 2013 WL 1748729 (S.D. Cal. January 7, 2013) ................20 9 Bjustrom v. Trust One Mgmt. Corp., 10 199 F.R.D. 346 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ..................................................................................15 11 Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) .............................................................................................18 12 Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 13 280 F.R.D. 524 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................................................18 14 Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., 268 F.R.D. 365 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................15, 16 15 Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 16 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) .........................................................................................9, 20 17 Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc., No. EDCV 07-1182, 2010 WL 2991486 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2010) ..................................10 18 Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., 19 275 F.R.D. 582 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................... passim 20 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................... passim 21 Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles County Fed'n of Labor v. I.N.S., 22 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................14 23 In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................9, 11 24 In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 25 527 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................18 26 In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor Overtime Pay Litig., No. C-07-1841, 2011 WL 3352460 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011) ..............................21 27 28 iii Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page5 of 29 1 In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litig. II, 253 F.R.D. 607 (S.D. Cal. 2008) .......................................................................................13 2 Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 3 669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................14, 16 4 Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................16 5 Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 6 C 12-04936 LB, 2014 WL 4978433 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) ..........................................14