The McDonald Class Action Law Suit Aug 2005 #5

Vinod K Seth, Physician,
1250 West Highland Acres Rd
Bismarck ND 58501
Tel 701 426 4788/Facs: 701 222-0712 and 255-2255

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

Katherine D. Fettke v. McDonald’s Corporation. Case number CV 044109.
BanTransFats.com v. McDonald’s Corporation. Case number CV034828.


REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM WRONG AND MISLEADING DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO POSTPONE FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING:


Honorable Judge John A Sutro Jr.,


On June 10 2005 as a private citizen and Class Member I forwarded a notarized affidavit setting forth my preliminary Objections to a proposed settlement in Cases number CV 034828 and CV 044109. I understand this proposed settlement was presented to the Court in accord with the terms of a stipulation and agreement between the parties dated January 31, 2005. It is my further understanding that this Court entered an Order dated February 9, 2005 that was based on the settlement agreement that had been entered into between the parties. I believe that in that Order the settlement agreement was preliminarily approved, as was permission to give Notice of Proposed Settlement and to give Notice to Class Action members and the setting of a Final Fairness Hearing.
In my early June 2005 Statement of Objection I requested permission to personally appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. In preparing for this upcoming hearing I have recently reviewed for the first time, the February 9, 2005 Order and find that it clearly states on page 2 (encl-1) lines 20 and 21 that the deadline for filing Objections would be “twenty days before the hearing date”. On line 8, of that same page the hearing date is noted as Aug 24, 2005. A Supplemental Order by the Court dated Feb 14 set a date of July 1 but only for those class members who request EXCLUSION (lines 4 and 5 page 1 of Feb 14 Order)


It appears to me that the parties have ignored the February 9 Order and have attempted to impose an earlier date for the filing of objections, that being July 1, 2005 and not the 20 days before the August 24 hearing that is clearly specified in your February 9 Order for class members seeking to object.

Since mid May, I have had a hectic schedule. In the last week of May, two of my daughters graduated, one from Johns Hopkins on May 25 and the other from Bismarck High School on May 30. Both events took up much personal time. Then on June 11, I left on a pre scheduled one-month trip to Africa and India. In anticipation of these absences I had to perform many details within my medical practice so that my patients would have proper care while I was gone.

I prepared and filed my affidavit of objections in early June of 2005. I tried to set forth my objections to the settlement. I requested an opportunity to be present at the Final Fairness Hearing in August. I had received notice (Encl-2) that any objections had to be filed by July 1, 2005. This was contrary to the Feb 9 Order of the Court. In the rush of my family activities, my long arranged travel abroad, my professional responsibilities and other stresses I found that if I was to meet a July 1, 2005 deadline, all I could do was dash off some objections in great haste before I left the US June 11. My filing was prepared without benefit of Counsel. It was not the most thorough or articulate set of objections that I might have filed. At best I hoped it sufficiently set forth a general outline of my concerns with the settlement. I had no time to develop objections to the Attorney Fees question.

The incorrect July 1 deadline that was promoted to me forced me to work under great pressure. This created great hardship for me. I was never able to develop my Objections to their fullest. This was especially true as they pertain to the settlement’s failing to address the needs of low-income and young people. It is they who are the least informed and also have the greatest need to be concerned about Transfat issues. As a doctor I have been concerned for many years about Transfats hidden in school and employee cafeteria food as well as in franchise and fast food restaurants.

I feel I was mislead and denied the time I needed to fully research and develop the Objections and to properly present the Objections that needed to be made.

I do not know why Plaintiffs and McDonald’s Corporation did not follow the explicit instructions set out by the Court in its Order of Feb 9th. With the resources each of these parties had at its command the dissemination of misinformation concerning filing deadlines should not be excused. As a person who feels harmed by their mistake I ask leave of the Court to accept and file a new affidavit of Objections. I have attached to this letter a draft that I have been working on for the Courts convenience of review.

The settlement in the above cases is not in the public interest, the settlement is not fair, the settlement is not reasonable and the settlement is not adequate. I object to any approval of it by this Court as a focus primarily on heart related problems would minimize the myriad other health problems of this artificial, unsafe, unnecessary and cheap ingredient used globally.

I request an opportunity to express my concerns in more detail at a Final Fairness Hearing.

I ask that settlement negotiations be continued to a later date and that in fairness to the public a new deadline for a Final Fairness Hearing be established.

I want to assure the Court that I am doing this solely in my capacity as a private citizen concerned about the public good. As a physician who has done considerable study on the subject I am very concerned about the affect increased use of transfats is having on human life spans in the US and am convinced this trend is attributable significantly to the partially hydrogenated oils hidden in foods advertised and sold by McDonald’s and others.
Dated Aug 10, 2005


VINOD K SETH