Doe

Doe v. Securtest

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 29, 20233:18-cv-07344California825 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGMON HAWKINS,

Case No. 18-cv-07344-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SECURTEST INC, et al., CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 13 Defendants.

This proposed class action settlement, now in its second iteration, remains deeply flawed. Plaintiff Regmon Hawkins seeks preliminary approval on behalf of himself and a proposed class of individuals who allegedly did not receive appropriate written disclosures for background checks procured for employment purposes pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). The proposed settlement purports to distinguish itself from its predecessor by conditioning Defendants’ payment of a $50,000 settlement to Hawkins to resolve Hawkins’ individual claims on this Court’s approval of the $100,000 class settlement. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.