throbber
Case 5:16-cv-O4955-LHK Document 384 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DiVESIGN
`
`STEPHEN HADLEY, et a1.
`
`Case No. 5:16—cv—04955LHK
`
`V.
`
`
`KELLOGG SALES COMPANY
`
`[Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b), (e), (h)]
`Judge Lucy H. Koh
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR WHILE/MARY APPROVAL ..
`
`
`
`
`Counsel who certified a “Californian Class” (“California-Class Counsel”)
`
`claims that the new nationwide deal has “no obvious deficiencies”—as before. DE
`
`377 at 24. This third—timecharm backfired again as before, because one can Spot
`
`obvious deficiencies, and the burden is on Plaintiffs to show all of why it deserves
`
`preliminary approval, and not “if it has no ‘obvious deficiency’, it is worth approval.’
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 28 placed an affirmative burden on California—Class
`
`Counsel, such that “[a] party seeking class certification must affirmatively
`
`demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove
`
`that there are infect sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or
`
`fact, etc.” Wei-Mart Stores 1). Dukes, 568 US. 338, 849 (2011). As California-Class
`
`Counsel repeatedly seek to settle on .a nationwide basis—of which does not have a
`
`certified litigation class, and failed twice—«the standard must be heightened:
`
`“Confronted with a request for settlement—only class certification
`
`[rules]
`
`designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-O4955-LHK Document 384 Filed 03/19/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`California—Class Counsel is basically asking “a delegation of judicial power to the
`
`plaintiffs, who can obtain class certification just by hiring a competent expert.”
`
`West 12. P1mdential89o, 282 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, «1.). Maybe
`
`it takes a statistician to tell whether the “quintiles” are fairly allocated, or what
`
`else might be really “behind the scenes’h—but 0y pres is for sure behind the scenes.
`
`The “black box” combines with “0y pres in, coupons out” still offers grave
`
`concerns that the “Class” still will get next to nothing from “black box” mysteries,
`
`so that a substantial cut might really go to cry pres. Cy pres is permitted in this
`
`Circuit, only when a direct distribution will be “infeasible given that each class
`
`10
`
`member's direct recovery would be de minimis. ” Lane 7). Facebook, 696 F.3d 811,
`
`ll
`
`821 (9th Cir. 2012). But clearly, Class will get some funds anywcm, making
`
`12
`
`“infeasibility of distribution” impossible, and the Class deserves the entire fund pro
`
`13
`
`rate, without resorting to 0y pres, which has full of problems as an Article III
`
`14
`
`standing’s redressability problem, see Brief for the US. as Ari/teas Curiae, Frank
`
`22. Geog, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), 2018 WL 3456069, at 1528 (US. July 16, 2018), or
`
`16
`
`as a settlement fairness / allocation/ excess fee problem. See Dennis o. Kellogg Ca,
`
`17
`
`697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 72012). Pearson o. NBTY, 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014).
`
`18
`
`Third, Californian-Class Counsel appears to have abdicated its duty for the
`
`19
`
`entire Californian class, by seeking to settle a nationwide class that treats
`
`20
`
`Californian claims undervalued: Whether or not one is in California class, “every
`
`21 Class Member who makes a claim will be subject to the same claims process that
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-O4955-LHK Document 384 Filed 03/19/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`provides the same remedy based on the claimant’s purchase history.” DE 377 at 27.
`
`But it is more than obvious that California—Class’ litigable claims have more
`
`worth than nationwide rtonwlitigable claimsm-without a certified class to proceed in
`
`a trial. “A fundamental conflict exists Where [Californian Litigation Class]
`
`members [are] harmed by the same conduct that benefitted [Nationwide] members
`
`of the class.” Valley Drag Co. 1). Geneva Phonmta, 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir.
`
`2003). The Court should set dates for a trial so that this Court’s judicial resources
`
`need not be wasted further by endless attempts to settle profitably Without real,
`
`relief. Or, “[a] district court may decertify a class at any time.” Rodriguez 1). West
`
`10
`
`Publishing Corp, 568 F.3d 948, 966 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`W
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the motion should be denied.
`
`Dated: March 15, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s[_ Shiyang Huang
`Shiyang Huang
`2800 SW Engler Ct,
`Topeka, KS 66614
`(314) 6691858
`deg;stagesettlemerite'lgtrriwithers
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I mailed the foregoing paper wit
`
`the Court. CM/ECF will notify all counsels of record.
`
`(sf Shiyang Huang
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket