United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL; GRANTING
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; GRANTING SERVICE PAYMENTS;
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge
Plaintiffs
Shawn Heaton and Anna Ahlborn (“Plaintiffs”), on
behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class Members, and
Defendants Social Finance, Inc. and SoFi Lending Corp.
(“Defendants”) (collectively, the
“Parties”), entered into a Settlement Agreement
dated April 4, 2016 (the “Settlement Agreement”),
providing for the settlement of this case (the
“Settlement”).
A
Fairness Hearing was held before this Court on August 8,
2016, to consider, among other things, whether the Settlement
represents a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the
action, whether to award fees and costs to Settlement Class
Counsel, and whether to award incentive payments to
Plaintiffs. Having carefully considered the Parties’
arguments and the response of Settlement Class Members, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. This
Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in
the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used in
this Final Judgment will have the same meanings as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined in this
Final Judgment.
2. This
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action, Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class (defined below), and
Defendants.
3. The
request for entry of a Final Judgment and order of dismissal
is hereby GRANTED.
4. The
Court finds that the Class proposed for purposes of the
Settlement meets the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and
23(b)(3), and hereby certifies a Settlement Class in the
action as follows:
All persons on whom Defendants made a “hard”
credit inquiry between November 20, 2013 and August 13, 2014
inclusive in connection with a student loan refinancing or a
personal loan who neither (a) funded a loan nor (b) uploaded
all documents requested on the sofi.com website; provided,
however, that the class shall not include any current or
former legal representative, officer, director or employee of
Defendants, the judge to whom the action is assigned, or any
member of such judge’s immediate family (the
“Settlement Class”).
5. The
Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the product of
good faith arms-length negotiations by the Parties, each of
whom was represented by experienced counsel. The Court finds
that the uncertainties and expense of continued litigation
(underscored by the Parties’ disputes as to the
validity of the claims), and Settlement Class Counsel’s
endorsement of the Settlement Agreement as in the best
interest of the Settlement Class Members, weigh in favor of
approval of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court approves
all terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement reflected therein. The Court further finds that
such Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interest of the Settlement Class
Members. The Court directs the Parties to consummate and
perform terms of the Settlement Agreement.
6. The
Court finds that the Notice provided for in the Order of
Preliminary Approval of Settlement has been provided to the
Settlement Class, and such Notice constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and was in full
compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, the United
States Constitution, and any other applicable law. The Notice
apprised the Settlement Class of: (i) the pendency of the
litigation; (ii) all material elements of the proposed
settlement, including but not limited to the relief afforded
the Settlement Class under the Settlement Agreement; (iii)
the res judicata effect on the Settlement Class and of their
opportunity to object to, comment on, or opt-out of, the
Settlement; (iv) the identity of Settlement Class Counsel and
of information necessary to contact Settlement Class Counsel;
and (v) the right to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The
Court is informed that zero (0) Class Members objected to the
Settlement and one (1) Class Member requested exclusion from
the Settlement. The Court finds that full opportunity has
been afforded to the Settlement Class to participate in the
Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, the Court determines that all
Final Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final
Judgment in accordance with the terms provided herein.
7. This
action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any
party, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and
in this Final Judgment.
8.
Within five business days of the Effective Date of the
Settlement, Defendants shall deliver $2.4 million to the
Settlement Administrator for deposit into the Settlement
Fund.
9. The
Court finds that $673, 035.95 is reasonable compensation for
Settlement Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and
expenses. The Court awards this amount, as Settlement Class
Counsel Fees, to Settlement Class Counsel from the Settlement
Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall wire transfer the
Settlement Class Counsel Fees to Settlement Class Counsel
within five (5) business days of receipt of Defendants’
$2.4 million deposit, in accordance with section 6.3.2 of the
Settlement Agreement.
10. The
Court finds that $7, 000.00 is reasonable compensation for
Plaintiff Shawn Heaton’s services in this matter, and
that $3, 000.00 is reasonable compensation for Plaintiff Anna
Ahlborn’s services in this matter. The Court awards
these amounts, as Incentive Payments, to Plaintiffs from the
Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall pay the
Incentive Payments to each Plaintiff within five (5) business
days ...