Eck v. City of Los Angeles

Filed 10/15/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

PATRICK ECK et al., B289717

Plaintiffs and (Los Angeles County Respondents, Super. Ct. No. BC577028)

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

CARMEN BALBER,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Dismissed. Consumer Watchdog, Jerry Flanagan, Benjamin Powell and Pamela Pressley for Objector and Appellant. Ahdoot & Wolfson, Robert R. Ahdoot, Tina Wolfson, Theodore W. Maya; Zimmerman Reed, Christopher P. Ridout and Caleb L.H. Marker; Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, Eric J. Benink, Vincent D. Slavens; Moskovitz Appellate Team, Myron Moskovitz and Christopher Hu for Plaintiffs and Respondents

Patrick Eck, Tyler Chapman, Brendan Eisan and Justin Kristopher Le-Roy. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Benjamin Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. ____________________ Patrick Eck, on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated Los Angeles County utility ratepayers, sued the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) alleging DWP had overcharged 1 ratepayers for electric utility usage. After the court certified the class for purpose of settlement and preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between the parties, subject to a fairness hearing, Carmen Balber, an unnamed class member, timely objected to the settlement and filed an ex parte application to intervene in the action. The court denied Balber’s application as untimely, overruled her objection, approved the settlement and entered a judgment in accordance with the settlement terms. Balber’s subsequent statutory motion to vacate the judgment was denied by operation of law. On appeal from the judgment Balber contends the court erred in approving the settlement agreement, primarily arguing the notice sent to class members was inadequate. However, in her briefs in this court Balber has not challenged the court’s ruling denying her application to intervene; and she has not appealed from the denial of her motion to vacate the judgment.