United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
HEATHER L. NEWTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendants.
TAVY
A. DUMONT, WILLIAM E. KENNEDY ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HEATHER
L. NEWTON AND THE CLASS
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND
JUDGMENT
EDWARD
M. CHEN JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before
the Court is Plaintiff Heather L. Newton’s unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Docket
No. 344.
On June
9, 2015, on a contested motion for class certification, the
Court certified a class in this matter. Docket No. 313. On
September 9, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendants Global Client
Solutions, LLC (“Global”) and Rocky Mountain Bank
& Trust (“RMBT”) (all, “the
Parties”) reached a settlement in private mediation
with the Honorable Rebecca Westerfield. See Docket No. 322,
p. 6, ll. 26.27. On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed her
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
along with the Settlement Agreement and Release between
Plaintiff Heather L. Newton and Defendants Global Client
Solutions, LLC and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust
(“Settlement Agreement”). Docket Nos. 322, 323-1.
On November 30, 2015, the Court ordered supplemental briefing
as to certain issues relating to the settlement, ordered
certain changes to the parties’ proposed Notice of
Settlement, and ordered Plaintiff to file under seal her
attorneys’ time records to support a lodestar
calculation. See Docket No. 330. In response, the
Parties filed a joint supplemental brief and revised proposed
Notice of Settlement. Docket No. 331. Plaintiff also
submitted a declaration attaching her attorneys’ time
records, with an Administrative Motion to File under Seal.
Docket No. 332. The Court held a hearing on preliminary
approval on December 17, 2015, and on January 15, 2016
granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement; approved the form, content and manner of
Notice of Settlement; and approved CPT Group as Administrator
for all aspects of the settlement. Docket No. 336.
In
determining that the settlement merited preliminary approval,
the Court previewed the factors that ultimately will
determine final approval, as set out in Churchill
Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th
Cir. 2004): (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 class members to the proposed settlement.
The Court found that the first, second, fourth, fifth and
sixth factors weigh in favor of approval, the third factor is
neutral, the seventh factor is inapplicable and, because
notice of settlement had not yet been given at that time, it
was too early to evaluate the eighth factor, the reaction of
class members to the proposed settlement. Docket No. 336, pp.
7-9.
CPT
Group disseminated the approved Notice of Settlement on
February 15, 2016. Docket No. 345, Skey Declaration, at
¶ 7. The deadline for objection was 90 days later,
Docket No. 336, p. 12, ll. 6-7, and thus has passed. CPT
Group received no written objections to the settlement.
Docket No. 345, Skey Declaration, at ¶ 11. The Court
received no objections to the settlement.
Now,
having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Settlement
Agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Pursuant to this Court's class certification order of
June 9, 2015 (Docket No. 313), the Class has been defined as:
All consumers in California who paid QSS directly, or
indirectly through ADS, for debt settlement services during
the four years preceding filing of the complaint, who opened
a Special Purpose Account with RMBT to be administered by
Global, and did not receive a full refund of all fees and
charges paid to all Defendants.
2. For
the reasons stated above and in the Court’s Order of
January 15, 2016 preliminarily approving the settlement, the
Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement set forth in
the November 12, 2015 Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement, Docket No. 322. The Court finds the
settlement negotiations were conducted at arms-length and in
good faith among counsel for the Parties, and that the terms
of the Settlement Agreement are in all respects fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to each of the Parties and the
Class Members, and are consistent and in compliance with all
requirements of Due Process and California law, as to, and in
the best interests of, each of the Parties and the Class
Members.
3. No
Class Members have filed timely requests for exclusion. The
Class Members who did not timely request exclusion are bound
by this Final Order and Judgment and by the Settlement
Agreement, including the releases provided for in this Final
Order and Judgment and in the Settlement Agreement.
4. The
Notice of Settlement and the notice methodology that was
implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and this
Court’s January 15, 2016 Order constituted the best
practicable notice under the circumstances. The notice
provided due, adequate and sufficient notice of the
settlement approval proceedings and of the matters set forth
in the proposed settlement, to all persons entitled to
receive notice, and constituted notice reasonably calculated
to apprise Class Members of their right to object to the
proposed settlement and to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing. The notice fully satisfied the requirements of the
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all
applicable requirements of due process and California law,
and the January 15, 2016 Order of this Court.
5. The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel and Plaintiff
adequately represented ...