Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dibel v. Jenny Craig

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 24, 2009

CONNIE DIBEL, BELINDA HAGEN AND VANESSA BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JENNY CRAIG, INC., JENNY CRAIG WEIGHT LOSS CENTRES, INC.; JENNY CRAIG PRODUCTS; JENNY CRAIG OPERATIONS, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT and (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO REFILE MOTION WITH SPECIFIED CHANGES (Doc. No. 198)

Presently before the Court is the parties Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval for Class Settlement. (Doc. No. 198.) On September 24, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the joint motion and discussed remaining perceived flaws in the proposed settlement.*fn1 After further review of the papers and the parties' responses to the Court's questions at the hearing, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties SHALL REFILE the motion on or before October 5, 2009. A hearing/status conference is set for October 22, 2009.

The refiled motion SHALL ADDRESS the following deficiencies in the parties second joint motion:

- Explain how the proposed notices to both the FLSA class and the state class satisfy the relevant provisions of FRCP 23(c)(2). Direct the Court to specific provisions, paragraphs, sections, etc. of the notices which comply with such requirements.

- Confirm or correct that the language in the notices and claim form (exhibits A, B, and C to the Proposed Consent Decree) is the same as the language in the Proposed Consent Decree, especially regarding the releases and other areas that have been amended pursuant to this Court's Orders.

- Provide the Court with a red-lined version of the Proposed Consent Decree and its exhibits, the Joint Motion, the memorandum in support of the Joint Motion, and the Proposed Order, comparing the original papers filed on May 29, 2009 (Doc. No. 192) with the papers to be filed in accordance with this Order.

- Double check the accuracy of the Proposed Order emailed to the Court, especially regarding the amount of service payments to be awarded to the Named Plaintiffs (as this differs from the amounts set forth in the original proposed order submitted to the Court in July 2009).

- Clarify Proposed Consent Decree, page 44, line 7 to further emphasis that the decision of the parties regarding the allocation and payment of settlement administrative costs is subject to the Court's approval.

- Correct the following typographical error: Memorandum in support of Joint Motion, page 15, lines 3 - 8 (sentence cut off or incorrectly inserted).

- Review all documents submitted to the Court thoroughly, making sure all amendments have been made throughout and in strict compliance with the Courts Orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.