Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2021

Middle Rider v. Moving Solutions, Inc

Judge
Lucy Koh
Docket
5:17-cv-04015
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Middle Rider v. Moving Solutions, Judge Koh modified the settlement-approval order so counsel covered Moving Solutions’ $20,000 shortfall.

Who this affects

The modification primarily affected the allocation of settlement funds between plaintiffs’ counsel and Moving Solutions. The court stated that class members and the class administrator were not affected.

What happened

In Middle Rider v. Moving Solutions, the court had already approved a $470,000 class-action settlement and entered final judgment. Moving Solutions did not pay its $20,000 share by the deadline.

The plaintiffs proposed a way to distribute the full settlement amount on time. The court ordered that counsel’s fees cover the $20,000 shortfall, with counsel receiving only $97,500 from the deposited settlement funds while retaining the right to seek the $20,000 from Moving Solutions or its principals.

Judge Lucy Koh modified the final-approval order. The class members and settlement administrator were not affected, and all other terms remained in effect.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Middle Rider v. Moving Solutions, Inc · No. 5:17-cv-04015
Judge
Lucy Koh
Date
Feb. 22, 2021

Background

On May 1, 2020, the court granted final approval of the parties’ class-action settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and entered final judgment. The settlement totaled $470,000, of which Moving Solutions was responsible for paying $20,000 to the settlement administrator by December 28, 2020. The plaintiffs later notified the court that Moving Solutions had not made that payment.

The court ordered Moving Solutions and its principal, Rick Philpott, to respond to the plaintiffs’ proposed solutions. Philpott stated that the court had authority to impose sanctions for the nonpayment and represented that Moving Solutions intended to contribute the required funds when funds became available. After a hearing and an unsuccessful settlement conference, the plaintiffs proposed a solution to ensure timely distribution of the full settlement amount.

Ruling

The court modified its Order Granting Final Approval. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees would cover Moving Solutions’ $20,000 shortfall, and counsel would receive only $97,500 from the funds already deposited with the class administrator. Counsel retained the right to pursue collection of the $20,000 in fees from Moving Solutions and/or its principals.

The court stated that neither the class members nor the class administrator would be affected by Moving Solutions’ failure to contribute the funds on time. All other terms and conditions of the final-approval order remained in effect, and the court stated that no additional notice was required.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.