A.B. et al v. The Regents of the University of California et al

Filing 66

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court GRANTS final approval of the Settlement and DIRECTS the parties, Special Master, Panel, and Settlement Administrator to implement the Settlement according to its terms and conditi ons, the Court reserves and continues jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses shall not exceed $8,760,000. (See Order for further specifics). (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J., K.L., and M.N.
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
AND JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA and JAMES MASON
HEAPS, M.D.,
Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1

The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) to resolve

2

this litigation, subject to the approval of this Court under Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 23(e). This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for final

4

settlement approval on July 12, 2021. At that time, the Court granted the motion to

5

approve the Settlement and appoint the Hon. Irma Gonzalez (ret.) as Special Master.

6

Dkt. 51. The Court now enters this final judgment, effective as of July 13, 2021.

7

The Court, after carefully considering the motion and the Settlement together

8

with all exhibits and attachments thereto, the record in this matter, and the briefs and

9

arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, has determined: (a) the Settlement is

10

fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved; (b) the Settlement Class

11

will be certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure; (c) the Notice to the Class was directed in a reasonable and sufficient

13

manner; (d) jurisdiction is reserved and continued with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion for

14

attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards;

15

(e) jurisdiction is reserved and continued with respect to implementation and

16

enforcement of the terms of the Settlement; (f) Plaintiffs are appointed Class

17

Representatives; (g) the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Law Group LLP, and

18

Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP are appointed as Class Counsel; and (h) Hon. Irma E.

19

Gonzalez (ret.) is appointed as Special Master.

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

21

1.

The Court has jurisdiction over this litigation, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and

22

Settlement Class Members, and any party to any agreement that is part of or related to

23

the Settlement. Venue is proper in this Court.

24
25
26
27
28

2.

All capitalized terms shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the

Settlement Agreement.
3.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court hereby finds the Settlement is, in all

respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
a.

Rule 23(e)(2)(A) is satisfied because the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel
-1FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1

have vigorously represented the Class.

2

b.

Rule 23(e)(2)(B) is satisfied because the Settlement was negotiated at

3

arm’s length by informed counsel acting in the best interests of their respective clients,

4

under the close supervision of an experienced mediator.

5

c.

Rule 23(e)(2)(C) is satisfied because the $73 million in relief

6

provided for the Class is adequate considering the costs, risks, and delay of trial and

7

appeal. The three-tiered settlement claims process allowing for claimant choice is an

8

efficient, accessible, safe, and private way to optimize payments to Class Members. The

9

Equitable Relief Measures ensure meaningful institutional change will be implemented

10

at UCLA to avoid sexual misconduct in the patient care context. Defendants will pay

11

separately Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, as well as all Settlement

12

administration and claims processing costs and fees, without any reduction of Class

13

Member recoveries. There are no undisclosed side agreements.

14

d.

Rule 23(e)(2)(D) is satisfied as the Settlement treats Class Members

15

equitably by presenting them with the same choices within the three-tiered structure.

16

The experienced three-person Panel, including the Special Master, OB/GYN, and

17

forensic psychiatrist, will evaluate claims and allocate awards to Tier 2 and Tier 3

18

Claimants.

19

4.

20

The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Class:
All female patients of Dr. James Heaps who were seen for
treatment by Dr. Heaps (1) at UCLA Medical Center
(currently known as Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center)
from January 1, 1986 to June 28, 2018, (2) at UCLA’s student
health center (currently known as Arthur Ashe Student Health
and Wellness Center) from January 1, 1983 to June 30, 2010,
or (3) at Dr. Heaps’s medical offices at 100 UCLA Medical
Plaza from February 1, 2014 to June 28, 2018.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5.

The Court concludes, for purposes of the Settlement only, that the

requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied for the
-2FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1

Settlement Class. In support of this conclusion, the Court finds as follows:

2

a.

The number of Settlement Class Members is too numerous for their

3

joinder to be practicable. The Settlement Class consists of approximately 5,500

4

individuals, whose identities are ascertainable through UCLA’s records or through self-

5

identification.

6

b.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class,

7

and these common questions predominate over individualized questions for settlement

8

purposes. The common questions include Heaps’s alleged pattern of misconduct toward

9

female patients at UCLA medical facilities, and UCLA’s failure to terminate or

10

otherwise discipline him.

11

c.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class in

12

that each of the claims arises from a common course of conduct on the part of each of

13

the Defendants in exposing Heaps’s female patients to alleged sexual misconduct.

14

d.

Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives, whose interests in this

15

matter are aligned with those of the other Settlement Class Members. Additionally,

16

proposed Class Counsel—the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Law Group LLP,

17

and Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP—are experienced in prosecuting class actions

18

involving similar claims and have committed the necessary resources to represent the

19

Settlement Class.

20

e.

21

resolution of this litigation.

22
23
24

6.

A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient

In making all the foregoing findings, the Court has exercised its discretion

in certifying a Settlement Class.
7.

The Court finds that notice was given in accordance with the Preliminary

25

Approval Order (Dkt. 33), and that the form and content of that Notice, and the

26

procedures for disseminating notice, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e) and due

27

process and constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court

28

further finds that the notification requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
-3FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1
2

U.S.C. § 1715, have been met.
8.

Adequate notice of the proceedings was given to Settlement Class

3

Members, with a full opportunity to participate in the fairness hearing or request

4

exclusion. Therefore, it is hereby determined that all Settlement Class Members are

5

bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment.

6

9.

The Court GRANTS final approval of the Settlement and DIRECTS the

7

parties, Special Master, Panel, and Settlement Administrator to implement the

8

Settlement according to its terms and conditions.

9
10
11

10.

This litigation is dismissed with prejudice, and the Released Claims and

Releasing Defendants’ Claims are released as set forth in the Settlement.
11.

This Final Approval Order shall have no force or effect on the persons who

12

have validly excluded themselves from the Class. The persons identified in Exhibit A to

13

the Supplemental Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough (filed separately under seal at

14

Dkt.45-2) requested exclusion from the Settlement Class as of the Objection and Opt-

15

Out Deadline. These persons shall not share in the benefits of the Settlement, and this

16

Final Approval Order and Judgment does not affect their legal rights to pursue any

17

claims they may have against Defendants. All other members of the Settlement Class

18

are hereinafter barred and permanently enjoined from prosecuting any Released Claims

19

against Defendants in any court, administrative agency, arbitral forum, or other tribunal.

20

12.

Neither the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed

21

pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement, is or may be deemed to be or may be

22

used as an admission of, or evidence of, (a) the validity of any Released Claim, (b) any

23

wrongdoing or liability of Defendant or any other Released Party, or (c) any fault or

24

omission of Defendant or any other Released Party in any proceeding in any court,

25

administrative agency, arbitral forum, or other tribunal.

26

13.

Neither Plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of

27

litigation expenses, and service awards, nor any order entered by this Court thereon,

28

shall in any way disturb or affect this Judgment, and all such matters shall be treated as
-4FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1

separate from this Judgment. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court

2

reserves and continues jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees,

3

reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards. Class Counsel’s request for

4

attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses shall not exceed $8,760,000. All

5

attorneys’ fees and expense will be paid separately by Regents, in addition to and

6

without reduction of the Settlement Fund. Any service awards the Court approves will

7

be paid from the Settlement Fund.

8
9
10
11

14.

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses,

and service awards will be posted on the Settlement website as soon as it is filed.
Settlement Class Members will have the opportunity to object to the motion.
15.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court reserves and

12

continues jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the terms

13

of the Settlement, Claims Process, distribution of Claim Awards, and all other matters

14

related to the administration, consummation, and interpretation of the Settlement and/or

15

this Final Approval Order and Judgment, including any orders necessary to effectuate

16

the final approval of the Settlement and its implementation.

17

16.

No Settlement Class Member or any other person will have any claim

18

against Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, any person designated by Class Counsel, the Special

19

Master, the Panel, or the Settlement Administrator arising from or relating to the

20

Settlement or actions, determinations or distributions made substantially in accordance

21

with the Settlement or Orders of the Court.

22

17.

If any Party fails to fulfill its obligations under the Settlement, the Court

23

retains authority to vacate the provisions of this Judgment releasing, relinquishing,

24

discharging, and barring and enjoining the prosecution of the Released Claims against

25

the Released Parties and to reinstate the Released Claims.

26

18.

If the Settlement does not become effective, this Judgment shall be rendered

27

null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Settlement and shall

28

be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection
-5FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)

1

herewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the

2

Settlement.

3
4
5

19.

The Court appoints as Class Representatives: Plaintiffs A.B., C.D., E.F.,

G.H., I.J., K.L., and M.N.
20.

The Court appoints the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Law Group

6

LLP, and Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP as Class Counsel. Class Counsel shall be

7

responsible for monitoring compliance with the Equitable Relief under the Settlement.

8

Class Counsel shall have no role or responsibility in regard to (i) advocating for

9

Settlement Class Members before the Special Master, or (ii) determining individual

10
11

Settlement Class Members’ claims or awards.
21.

The Court appoints Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez (Ret.) as Special Master to

12

perform the duties consented to by the Parties under the Settlement. This appointment is

13

fair in light of her experience evaluating claims of this nature and Regents’ agreement

14

to pay her separately and apart from the Settlement Fund.

15
16

22.

As the Settlement dictates, the Special Master shall perform the following

duties with all reasonable diligence:

17

a. Lead the Panel in adjudicating and determining Claim Awards for

18

Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claims;

19

b. Retain and supervise, or consult, any psychologists, psychiatrists, or

20

other experts, trained specialists, or administrative personnel to

21

conduct interviews and evaluate Claim Forms;

22

c. Permit, at her discretion, late-filed Claims during the period Claims

23

are being evaluated; and

24

d. Develop protocols in consultation with the Parties for interviews or

25

other oral or written communications with Settlement Class members

26

relating to Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claims.

27
28

23.

The Special Master’s determination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claim Awards

shall be final.
-6FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)