Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
`JACK FITZGERALD (SBN 257370)
`jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
`TREVOR M. FLYNN (SBN 253362)
`trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
`MELANIE PERSINGER (SBN 275423)
`melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
`Hillcrest Professional Building
`3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
`San Diego, California 92103
`Phone: (619) 692-3840
`Fax: (619) 353-0404
`JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC
`SIDNEY W. JACKSON, III (pro hac vice)
`75 St. Michael Street
`Mobile, Alabama 36602
`Phone: (251) 433-6699
`Fax: (251) 433-6127
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`STEPHEN HADLEY, MELODY DIGREGORIO,
`ERIC FISHON, KERRY AUSTIN, and
`NAFEESHA MADYUN, on behalf of themselves,
`all others similarly situated, and the general public,
`
`
`
`
`
`KELLOGG SALES COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 5:16-cv-04955-LHK
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`[Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)]
`
`Judge:
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Location:
`
`Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`May 20, 2021
`1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom 8 – 4th Floor
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................................... iii
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY..................................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`THE SETTLMENT ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`The Settlement Class.................................................................................................... 3
`
`Benefits for the Settlement Class ................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Kellogg will Establish a $13 Million Non-Reversionary Settlement
`Fund ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Kellogg Will Make Substantial Labeling Commitments ................................. 5
`
`Class Notice and Claims Administration ..................................................................... 6
`
`The Settlement’s Release ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Opting Out ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Objecting ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards ............................................................... 7
`
`Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Certify the Settlement Class ........................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(a) are Satisfied ................................................. 9
`
`i
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 36
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Numerosity ........................................................................................... 9
`
`Commonality........................................................................................ 9
`
`Typicality ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Adequacy ........................................................................................... 10
`
`2.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are Satisfied .......................................... 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Predominance ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Superiority.......................................................................................... 14
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Approve the Proposed Settlement ................................................ 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Settlement is the Product of Serious, Informed, Non-Collusive
`Negotiations ................................................................................................... 15
`
`The Settlement Does Not Grant Preferential Treatment Improperly ............. 17
`
`The Settlement Falls within the Range of Possible Approval ....................... 17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The Churchill Village Factors Favor Preliminary Approval ............. 17
`
`The Monetary Relief is Fair in Relation to Potential
`Damages ............................................................................................. 22
`
`The Injunctive Relief is Appropriate and Meaningful ....................... 23
`
`The Court will Determine Reasonable Fees, Costs, and
`Service Awards .................................................................................. 23
`
`4.
`
`The Settlement has No Obvious Deficiencies ............................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`The Court Should Approve the Class Notice and Notice Plan .................................. 25
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`ii
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc.,
` No. 12-cv-1150 DMG (MANx) (C.D. Cal.) ............................................................................................. 17
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
` 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................................................ 11, 12
`
`Bradach v. Pharmavite, LLC,
` 735 Fed. Appx. 251 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
` 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Broomfield v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 1972505 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC,
` 2013 WL 990495 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) ............................................................................................ 23
`
`Butler v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
` 2017 WL 1398316 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`Castro v. Paragon Indus., Inc.,
` 2020 WL 1984240 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`Chavez v. PVH Corp.,
` 2015 WL 12915109 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) .......................................................................................... 24
`
`Chevron Envt’l. Mgmt. Co. v. BKK Corp.,
` 2013 WL 5587363 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`Churchill Village v. Gen. Elec.,
` 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc,
` 2014 WL 2916871 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) .......................................................................................... 23
`
`Delgado v. MarketSource, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 4059850 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Dennis v. Kellogg Co.,
` 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`iii
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper,
` 445 U.S. 326 (1980) .................................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 4918366 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n,
` 2017 WL 3623734 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) .................................................................................... 19, 25
`
`Farar v. Bayer AG,
` Case No. 14-cv-4601 (N.D. Cal.) .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`Gaudin v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
` 2015 WL 4463650 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2015) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`Guifu Li v. A Perfect Franchise, Inc.,
` 2011 WL 4635198 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011) ............................................................................................. 19
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
` 2020 WL 836673 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) ..................................................................................... 2, 4, 20
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
` 324 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`Hale v. Manna Pro Prod., LLC,
` 2020 WL 3642490 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) ............................................................................................. 16
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
` 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................... 10, 13, 15
`
`Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp.,
` 383 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp.,
` 2011 WL 1627973 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) .................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC,
` 2020 WL 1031801 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Heim v. Heim,
` 2014 WL 1340063 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Hendricks v. Ference,
` 754 Fed. App’x 510 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................................... 24
`
`Hendricks v. Starkist Co.,
` 2016 WL 5462423 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016).......................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`iv
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Hesse v. Sprint Corp.,
` 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 520616 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
` 327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ........................................................................................................ 18, 22
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig.,
` 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liability Litig.,
` 424 F. Supp. 3d 456 (E.D. La. 2020) .................................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,
` 2015 WL 5159441 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015)............................................................................................ 18
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
` 881 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litig.,
` 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`In re Lenovo Adware Litig.,
` 2019 WL 1791420 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) .......................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig.,
` 2018 WL 4620695 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018).......................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,
` 305 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
` 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig.,
` 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
` 552 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig.,
` 120 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2015) ...................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Optical Disk Drive Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
` 2016 WL 7364803 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`v
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.,
` 252 F.R.D. 83 (D. Mass. 2008) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
` 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
` 2011 WL 7575004 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2011) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
` 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009)............................................................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Valeant Pharms. Int’l, Inc. Secs. Litig.,
` 2020 WL 3166456 (D.N.J. June 15, 2020) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
` 2016 WL 4474612 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) .............................................................................. 18, 21, 22
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
` 2019 WL 387322 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2019) ....................................................................................... 14, 25
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
` 2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) ....................................................................................... 8, 24
`
`In re Zynga Inc. Secs. Litig.,
` 2015 WL 6471171 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) ........................................................................................... 16
`
`Jabbari v. Farmer,
` 965 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
` 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
` 2014 WL 2702726 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Knapp v. Art.com, Inc.,
` 283 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................................................ 18, 21
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
` 2020 WL 2322993 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
` 2021 WL 750823 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021) ............................................................................... 5, 6, 15, 21
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
` 334 F.R.D. 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`vi
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Kutzman v. Derrel’s Mini Storage, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 406768 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
` 2014 WL 3404531 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2014) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
` 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Martin v. Monsanto Co.,
` 2017 WL 1115167 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
` 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................................... 19
`
`McCabe v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc.,
` 2015 WL 3990915 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) .......................................................................................... 23
`
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
` 2014 WL 4978433 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`Morales v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
` 2017 WL 2598556 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2017) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Moreno v. Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 1139672 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC,
` No. 15-cv-292 (N.D. Cal.)......................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Rodriguez v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC,
` 2018 WL 1920256 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp.,
` 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir.2009) .......................................................................................................... 17, 19, 21
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 511953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`Sherman v. CLP Res., Inc.,
` 2020 WL 2790098 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020) ..................................................................................... 12, 16
`
`Shin v. Plantronics, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 1934893 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`Slezak v. City of Palo Alto,
` 2017 WL 2688224 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2017) .......................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`vii
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Stanton v. Boeing Co.,
` 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.,
` 835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`
`--- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc.,
` 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`Vincent v. Reser,
` 2013 WL 621865 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
` 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
` 564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC,
` 2017 WL 589199 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Warner v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
` 2016 WL 8578913 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2016) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Weeks v. Google LLC,
` 2019 WL 8135563 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) .......................................................................................... 24
`
`Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers,
` 2014 WL 7148923 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2014) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
` 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.,
` 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) ......................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`viii
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) .................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) .................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) .................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) ...................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation (Second) § 30.44 ......................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`ix
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE
`NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and the Northern District of California’s Procedural
`Guidelines for Class Action Settlements (“Settlement Guidelines”), on May 20, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as may be heard, Plaintiffs will move the Court, the Honorable Lucy H. Koh presiding, for an
`Order preliminarily approving a proposed nationwide class action settlement. The Motion is based on this
`Notice of Motion; the below Memorandum; the concurrently-filed Declarations of Jack Fitzgerald
`(“Fitzgerald Decl.”), Thomas Monroe (“Monroe Decl.”), Colin Weir (“Weir Decl.”), and Brandon Schwartz
`(“Schwartz Decl.”), and all exhibits thereto; all prior pleadings and proceedings had in the action; and any
`additional evidence and argument submitted in support of the Motion.
`Plaintiffs seek an Order certifying the Settlement Class and appointing Class Representatives and
`Class Counsel; granting preliminary approval to the proposed nationwide class Settlement; approving the
`proposed Notice Plan and directing Class Notice to be made; and setting schedules and procedures for
`effecting Class Notice, making claims, opting out, objecting, and conducting a Final Approval Hearing.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class, grant the proposed Settlement preliminary
`approval, and set a schedule and procedures for Class Notice, claims, opting out, objecting, and holding a
`Final Approval Hearing.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs respectfully request preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement they believe directly
`addresses the Court’s previously-voiced concerns. First, the Settlement is now expressly limited to releasing
`only those claims that, “as set forth in Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010), are based on the
`identical factual predicate, or depend on the same set of facts alleged in the Actions regarding the Class
`Products,” SA ¶ 8.1.1 Second, the Settlement Class is now limited to Class Products for which the Court
`already certified a California class, addressing the Court’s concern regarding predominance under Rule
`
`
`1 The parties’ March 9, 2021 Settlement Agreement is attached to the Fitzgerald Declaration as Exhibit 1 and
`cited herein as “SA.”
`
`1
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 377 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`23(b)(3). See id. ¶¶ 1.5, 1.8, 4.1. Third, in consideration of the reduced scope of the Settlement Class, the
`previous settlement’s voucher component has been eliminated, while the cash component has been increased
`to $13 million, obviating the need for a complicated analysis or multi-step process for awarding attorneys’
`fees. See id. ¶¶ 1.34, 2.1. Due to the reduction in sales covered by the Settlement, despite the removal of the
`voucher component, and in light of the additional cash, the Settlement’s $13 million non-reversionary
`common fund is actually now more economically favorable to the Settlement Class.
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`II.
`The parties reached an initial settlement in this case in October 2019, pursuant to which Kellogg had
`agreed to pay $12 million in cash, and to make available to the class $8.25 million in vouchers, in exchange
`for a broad release of all products and claims Plaintiffs had challenged in two lawsuits. See generally Dkt.
`No. 325, Mot. for Preliminary Approval. In February 2020, the Court denied preliminary approval because:
`First, the release of claims is overbroad. Second, it is unclear whether certification of the
`settlement class is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Third, the
`parties fail to provide sufficient information to justify a proposed reversion to Kellogg.
`Fourth, the claim form, opt-out form, and notice forms contain numerous errors that result
`in inadequate disclosure of various aspects of the settlement to class members. Fifth, the
`settlement structure is currently inconsistent with the fact that the voucher portion of the
`settlement constitutes a coupon settlement under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
`28 U.S.C. § 1712.
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2020 WL 836673, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (Koh, J.).
`In June 2020, following a series of COVID-19-related delays, the parties attended a mediation to
`address these issues, but for a variety of reasons, the settlement appeared to be falling apart. Believing
`Kellogg had improperly repudiated the settlement, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce, Dkt. No. 346, and a
`Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval, Dkt. No. 347. Kellogg opposed the enforcement motion, Dkt.
`No. 357, but said that, “if the Court is inclined to grant preliminary approval of the settlement agreement as
`it is currently drafted,” Kellogg “does not oppose Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval and
`will abide by the settlement agreement Plaintiffs presented to the Court for approval.” Dkt. No. 358 at 1.
`In November 2020, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions. At the Court’s request, Plaintiffs
`withdrew their Motion to Enforce given Kellogg’s non-opposition to the Renewed Motion for Preliminary
`Approval. Dkt. No. 361; see also Dkt. No. 363, Nov. 12, 2020 Hrg. Tr. at 19:22-24. And the Court found
`certain changes to the notices and relevant forms were satisfactory, while providing a few additional
`2
`Hadley et al. v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 16-cv-4955-LHK
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-