Sousa v. Walmart Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2024
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE SOUSA, et al., on behalf of Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-EPG themselves and class members, 12 ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND Plaintiffs, SETTING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND 13 HEARING v. 14 15 WALMART, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On April 15, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement in this class action case. (ECF 19 No. 116). Accordingly, the Court will set a deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary 20 approval of class settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).1 “Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 23(e) requires district courts to review proposed class action settlements for 22 fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy.” Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management, LLC, 944 F.3d 103, 23 1 Rule 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims issues, or defenses of a certified class—or a class proposed to be 24 certified for purposes of settlement—may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” If the parties’ settlement agreement only resolves Plaintiffs’ individual claims or does 25 not seek to bind any putative class members, by no later than June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file a 26 supplemental brief in support of the notice of settlement that discusses whether the Court is required to apply the factors set forth in Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands¸ 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989), 27 to the parties’ settlement agreement or whether subsequent amendments to Rule 23(e) “reject the Diaz approach,” Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc., No. 22-cv-1496-JLS (SBC), 2023 WL 8604152, at *4, (S.D. Cal. 28 Dec. 12, 2023). 1 | 1048 (2019). The parties are advised that when a settlement precedes class certification “the 2 | district court must apply ‘an even higher level of scrutiny’” when evaluating the substantive 3 | fairness of the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e). In re Apple Inc. Device Performance 4 || Litigation, 50 F.4th 769, 782 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting McKinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack, 16 F.Ath 5 | 594, 606 (9th Cir. 2021)). 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement by no later than 8 June 11, 2024. Defendants shall file a statement of non-opposition or opposition by no

9 later than June 25, 2024. Any reply brief shall be filed by July 2, 2024. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint motion. 0 2. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for July 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10 (EPG). To participate telephonically, each party is to use the following dial-in number and 12 passcode: Dial-in number 1-888-251-2909; Passcode 1024453. 13 14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 16, 2024 [se hey □ 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28