The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement is denied. The Court shall conduct a status conference concerning a potential second motion for preliminary approval on March 22, 2018. Analysis: The motion obviously fails to comply with section H of CMO#2. Therefore, the Court has not read the motion or notice and associated forms in detail. However, it violates at least the following portions of section H: ¶ 1.b. & c. As to the first subclass, there is no explanation of how the potential “full value” damage amount per class member ($3,700) is calculated. The compliance as to the 2d and 3d subclasses is vague. ¶ 1.e. The description of discovery is vague. ¶ 2 There is no declaration from defense counsel. ¶ 3.b. The agreed-upon distribution does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 382, subdivision (b). ¶ 3.c.i. There no declaration from Riverside Legal Aid.

¶ 3.c.ii. There are no declarations providing the information required. ¶ 6.a. No c