Ohring v. UniSea Inc

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 4 — AT SEATTLE — 5 — AMICHAI OHRING, individually and 6 on behalf of others similarly situated, 7 Plaintiff, C21-359 TSZ 8 v. MINUTE ORDER 9 UNISEA, INC.; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, — 10 — Defendants. — 11 — The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 12 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 13 (1) Counsel are DIRECTED to meet and confer and to file, on or before May 19, 2023, a Joint Status Report addressing the following issues: — 14 — (a) For purposes of any second round of distribution of settlement funds 15 to participating class members, on what basis are class members who received and cashed initial payments of $100 or less deemed ineligible for a pro rata share 16 of uncashed awards; (b) On what basis is Legal Foundation of Washington1 an appropriate — 17 — cy pres recipient; see Nachsin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the . . . lawsuit, the — 18 — objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity.”); see also Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 19 858 (9th Cir. 2012); — 20 — — 21 — 1 The Court also notes that the proposed notice to class members fails to disclose the possibility — 22 — of a cy pres award or the identity of the recipient upon which the parties have agreed. 1 (c) What is the average anticipated award to class members,2 and what is the range of (i.e., the minimum and maximum) anticipated payments; — 2 — (d) Whether the requisite notices of the proposed class settlement have 3 been provided to the appropriate federal and state officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 ; — 4 — (e) How class members may view or obtain copies of materials filed in this matter, and how they will be notified if the final approval hearing must be — 5 — conducted virtually (or, in other words, whether the settlement administrator or class counsel will maintain a dedicated website related to the proposed settlement — 6 — and whether the website address will be provided in the notice to the class); and — 7 — (f) Whether defendants Does 1 through 100 may be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. — 8 — (2) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, docket 9 no. 52, is RENOTED to May 19, 2023. Any revised settlement agreement, any revised notice to the class, any § 1715 notice, and any redlined versions of such materials shall be 10 attached to the Joint Status Report referenced in Paragraph 1, above. 11 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. — 12 — Dated this 1st day of May, 2023. — 13 — Ravi Subramanian — 14 — Clerk — 15 — s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — 19 2 The Court calculates that the net settlement amount, to be distributed among the class members, equals $390,000, which represents the gross settlement fund of $600,000 minus (i) attorneys’ 20 fees and costs in the amount of $185,000, (ii) class representative service fees in the amount of $5,000, and (iii) settlement administration expenses in the amount of $20,000. Based on a class size of 1,845, the average payment, if the net proceeds were divided equally, would be $211.38 — 21 — per class member. This computation and the range of anticipated awards must be included in any notice sent to class members so that they may understand how their estimated shares of the — 22 — settlement compare.