Aleida Miranda v. American National Red Cross

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:22-cv-03633
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALEIDA MIRANDA, Case No. 22-cv-03633-SK

8 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF 9 v. QUESTIONS

10 AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS,

11 Defendant.

12 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE 13 OF THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED 14 ON MAY 11, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. VIA PUBLIC ZOOM WEBINAR. 15 In addition to the Court’s first notice of questions, (Dkt. No. 83), the Court intends to 16 address the questions below at the hearing. The Court advises the parties that it will not accept 17 written answers to the questions before the hearing on this motion. The parties shall be prepared 18 to address the following questions at the hearing: 19 (1) This question is directed at both parties: Why do the class and PAGA periods 20 differ? (See Dkt. No. 75 at p. 9 (defining the class period from May 13, 2018 through 21 February 9, 2024 and the PAGA period from March 10, 2021 through February 9, 2024).)1 22 (2) This question is directed to Plaintiff: To evaluate the adequacy of the relief that a 23 settlement provides, “courts primarily consider plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 24 1078, 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Balancing the class’s potential recovery against the amount 25 offered in settlement is ‘perhaps the most important factor to consider’ in preliminary 26 approval.” Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 959, 970 (N.D. Cal. 27 1 2019) (quoting Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). 2 For all class claims, Plaintiff bases Defendants’ maximum exposure on a compromised 3 position. Plaintiff discounts its potential recovery to account for the risks associated with 4 (1) obtaining and maintaining class certification, (2) succeeding on the merits and establishing liability, and (3) proving the extent of damages and obtaining an award 5 thereof. (Dkt. No. 75-1 at pp. 20-23.) Similarly, Plaintiff significantly decreases 6 Defendant’s potential PAGA claim exposure through discounts. (Id. at p. 24.) “It is 7 unsound to use a compromise position to calculate a defendant's ‘maximum’ liability on 8 any given claim.” Almanzar v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:20-CV-0699-KJN, 2022 9 WL 2817435, at *11 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2022). “[F]or the court to judge the adequacy of 10 the settlement amount, it must be presented with plaintiff’s best estimate of all claims’ 11 maximum verdict value—not their post-compromised value.” Id.; see also Rodriguez v. 12 W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (describing how the district court 13 compared the proposed settlement to “the best possible outcome for the class”). 14 What is Defendant’s maximum exposure for (1) all class claims and (2) the PAGA 15 claim if litigation were to proceed to a judgment on the merits? Second, how did 16 Plaintiff explain why the proposed discounts were appropriate? 17 (3) This question is directed to Plaintiff: How has Plaintiff supplied the Court with 18 “enough information to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of [her] case”? 19 Eddings v. DS Servs. of Am., Inc., No. 15-CV-02576-VC, 2016 WL 3390477, at *1 (N.D. 20 Cal. May 20, 2016) Plaintiff appears to solely provide generic statements of various risks 21 inherent to class action, namely, that the Court might deny class certification or that 22 Plaintiff might fail to prove a claim. (Dkt. No. 75-1 at pp. 20-23.) Courts in the Northern 23 District have required more. See Haralson, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 971 (denying preliminary 24 approval of a class action and PAGA settlement because the plaintiff failed to articulate 25 “particularized reasons” why the proposed discounts were appropriate); Hunt v. VEP 26 Healthcare, Inc., No. 16-CV-04790-VC, 2017 WL 3608297, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 27 2017) (“The motion for preliminary approval makes abstract gestures to the uncertainties ] weakness of any potential defenses.”); Eddings, 2016 WL 3390477, at *1 (“The plaintiffs 2 list legal issues that this case might present and positions that the defendants might take, 3 but they don’t analyze those issues or evaluate the strength or weakness of defendants’ 4 positions. A party moving for preliminary approval should cite case law and apply it to 5 explain why each claim or defense in the case is more or less likely to prove meritorious.”). 6 (4) This question is directed to Plaintiff: Has the California Labor and Workforce 7 Development Agency (“LWDA”) objected or otherwise responded to the proposed g settlement? See Almanzar, 2022 WL 2817435 at *17 (denying a motion for preliminary 9 approval of a class action and PAGA settlement in part because the parties did not indicate 10 whether the LWDA objected or otherwise responded to the proposed settlement) (citing Rodriguez v. Danell Custom Harvesting, LLC, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1133 (E.D. Cal. 2018); Mancini v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4489590, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18,

2018).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: May 7, 2026 ° le .

16 SALLIE KIM 17 United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28