The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES, FINAL APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS
The Court has heard a motion by Plaintiff VINCENT BOVA ("Plaintiff" or "Class Representative") for Certification of Settlement Classes and Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement ("Motion for Final Approval"). Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as acquirer of certain assets and liabilities of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ("WMB") from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), acting as receiver (hereinafter, "Defendant") filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion.
Under Rule 23(e), the Court may approve a class settlement only upon finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To determine whether a proposed settlement meets these standards, the Court must evaluate a number of factors, including:
(1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case;
(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;
(4) the amount offered in settlement;
(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
(6) the experience and views of counsel;
(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and
(8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). These factors are not exclusive, and in some circumstances, one factor may deserve more weight than others or alone may even prove to be determinative. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004). In addition, the settlement may not be the product of collusion among the negotiating parties. Ficalora v. Lockheed California Co., 751 F.2d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 1985); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000).
Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the supporting memoranda, the oral argument presented at the [Insert Date] fairness hearing, and the complete record in this matter, for the reasons set forth therein and ...