Brooks v. Pressed Juicery, Inc.
2:19-cv-01687
E.D. Cal.Mar 15, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Valerie Brooks sued Pressed Juicery, Inc. under the ADA and California's Unruh Act, alleging its website was not accessible to visually disabled users.
- The parties obtained conditional certification and preliminary approval of a class settlement in 2020; a Final Fairness Hearing occurred in February 2022 where objector Timothy Elder raised concerns about the settlement and notice/claim procedures.
- The court ordered the parties to submit revised notice and claim forms and details of the claims process; the parties submitted amended documents and a settlement website (pressedjuiceryadsettlement.com) for online claims.
- Revisions to the notice added a description of the settlement fund and allowed claimants to submit proof of website use or attest under penalty of perjury that they attempted to use the website.
- The claim form contained a likely typographical error (a postmark date of November 29, 2021) and the notice initially set an April 1, 2022 postmark deadline for claims.
- The court conditionally approved the revised notice and claim form but ordered the parties to (1) make the claims website fully functional and accessible promptly, and (2) change all claim postmark deadlines to April 29, 2022; unresolved objections will be heard at the continued Final Fairness Hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice and claim form | Joint request: revised notice adequately informs class and permits claims | Joint request: revisions address prior concerns | Court conditionally approved the revised notice and claim form as adequate |
| Sufficiency of time to submit claims | Proposed April 1, 2022 postmark deadline | Agreed to proposed schedule | Court found April 1 too short and ordered all postmark deadlines changed to April 29, 2022 |
| Functionality and accessibility of claims website | Parties provided a settlement website for online claims | Agreed site would be used for claims submission | Court required the website be fully operational and accessible promptly after the order |
| Objector's substantive concerns about settlement scope (termination date and third-party content exclusion) | Elder argued settlement lacked a termination date and excluded third-party content from remediation | Parties did not address these concerns in the revised notice | Court preserved these objections for the continued Final Fairness Hearing (May 6, 2022) |
Key Cases Cited
- Churchill Village LLC v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice must describe settlement sufficiently to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate)
- Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) (standard for adequacy of settlement notice)
- Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (settlement notices should be neutral, simple, and understandable)