Ambrose v. The Kroger Co.
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-04009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ambrose v. Kroger Co., Judge Chen requested publicity information before deciding whether to approve a proposed class-action settlement dismissing monetary claims.
The parties and the putative class members, particularly absent plaintiffs whose monetary claims could be affected by the proposed settlement or by reliance on the lawsuit.
What happened
In Ambrose v. The Kroger Co., the parties asked the court to preliminarily approve a proposed settlement involving a putative class. The proposed settlement would essentially dismiss the class claims seeking money.
The court said it needed information about how widely the case had been publicized and whether potential class members had responded. The court explained that federal rules require court approval and notice before class claims are dismissed or settled, even before the class has been formally certified.
The court ordered the parties to file that information by August 23, 2021, but did not decide whether to approve the settlement. Judge Edward M. Chen issued the order on August 19, 2021.
The detailed version
- Ambrose v. The Kroger Co. · No. 3:20-cv-04009
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 19, 2021
Background
The parties filed a notice of motion and motion seeking preliminary approval of a class-action settlement agreement involving a putative class. A putative class is a proposed group of people whose claims have not yet been formally certified as a class. The court stated that the proposed settlement essentially called for dismissal of the class claims for monetary relief.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval before a class action is dismissed or compromised and requires notice to class members in the manner the court directs. The court explained that this requirement protects absent plaintiffs. It also applies even when the class has not yet been certified.
The court was concerned about the scope and nature of publicity associated with the case. It stated that information about publicity and inquiries from putative class members was needed to safeguard absent plaintiffs and to prevent potential class members from mistakenly relying on the lawsuit for monetary relief while the statute of limitations on their claims continued to run without their knowledge.
Order
Before deciding whether to approve the proposed settlement, the court ordered the parties to file, by August 23, 2021, a description of the scope of any publicity about the case and any responsive inquiries from putative class members to that date. The order requested information; it did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.