Opinion
2:21-cv-0885 WBS KJN
05-09-2023
TRICILLA GRIFFIN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court has received plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement in this matter. Counsel have disregarded the court's explicit instructions to “present additional information demonstrating the settlement's adequacy, including the full potential value of the class claims” and “how the settlement amount compares to that value,” among other things. (See Docket No. 32 at 18-19.) Accordingly, the court still requires more information to assess whether the proposed settlement provides adequate relief.
On or before May 23, 2023, counsel shall file with the court supplemental briefing addressing how the settlement amount compares to the maximum potential value of the claims, along with explanation of the underlying facts and calculations used to reach those figures. Counsel shall also provide further discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of this case, beyond the general risks inherent in class action litigation already discussed in the motion. The court will not presume the reasonableness of the settlement and will not give deference to any of counsel's conclusions that lack adequate explanation and factual support. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 50 F.4th 769, 2022 WL 4492078, at *8 (9th Cir. 2022).
IT IS SO ORDERED.