Robinson v Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC
Filing
27
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/9/2017 GRANTING Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MATTHEW SCOTT ROBINSON,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
No. 2:14-cv-02359-TLN-CKD
ORDER
v.
PARAMOUNT EQUITY MORTGAGE,
LLC,
Defendant.
17
18
19
The instant case is a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
20
Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew
21
Scott Robinson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement reached with
22
Defendant Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 22.) Defendant does not
23
oppose the motion. (ECF No. 24.) The Court has carefully considered the proposed settlement.
24
Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED.
25
26
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Within the meaning of the TCPA, an automatic telephone dialing system or “auto-dialer”
27
is a device that uses a random or sequential number generator to produce and store telephone
28
numbers, which the auto-dialer then calls. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). The TCPA generally prohibits
1
1
anyone from placing calls to a cellular phone using an auto-dialer. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
2
The TCPA also generally prohibits anyone from placing calls that use an artificial or prerecorded
3
voice to deliver a message. Id. Finally, the TCPA and its implementing regulations generally
4
prohibit placing unsolicited calls to anyone registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. 47
5
U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).
6
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 8, 2014, and filed a First Amended Complaint on
7
February 19, 2015. (Compl., ECF No. 1; First Amended Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 17.)
8
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA by using an auto-dialer to make unsolicited
9
calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone and the cellular phones of other class members, or by causing
10
such calls to be made. (FAC ¶¶ 94–96, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
11
violated the TCPA by using artificial or prerecorded voices to deliver messages to Plaintiff and
12
other class members. (FAC ¶¶ 94–96, ECF No. 17.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was
13
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry when Defendant called him. (FAC ¶¶24, 24,
14
ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff alleges that there are thousands of class members who received similar
15
calls. (FAC ¶¶ 70, 79, ECF No. 17.) Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations and does not admit
16
any liability. (Stip. of Settlement and Release (“Stip. of Settlement”) ¶ 37, ECF No. 22-1.)
17
Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively “the Parties”) undertook discovery and settlement
18
negotiations, and eventually reached the instant agreement set forth in their Stipulation of
19
Settlement and Release (“Stipulation of Settlement”). (ECF No. 22-1). Pursuant to terms set
20
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, the Parties propose to settle this lawsuit as a class action.
21
(Stip. of Settlement, ECF No. 22-1.) The proposed settlement class (“Settlement Class”) is
22
defined as:
23
24
25
26
All persons whom Defendant called for marketing purposes on a
cellular telephone without prior express written consent from
October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015, and all persons whom
Defendant called on a telephone number which was registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry without prior express written
consent from October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015.
27
(Stip. of Settlement ¶ 8, ECF No. 22-1.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court
28
approval before a class action may be settled. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Consistent with that
2
1
requirement, the Parties now seek preliminary approval of their proposed settlement before notice
2
of the proposed settlement is sent to members of the Settlement Class. (Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim.
3
Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Mot.”) 1:23–2:19, ECF No. 22.)
4
II.
5
6
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The Court briefly summarizes the relevant details of the proposed settlement. The full
terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. (ECF No. 22-1.)
7
A. The Settlement Class
8
“All persons whom Defendant called for marketing purposes on a cellular telephone
9
without prior express written consent from October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015, and all persons
10
whom Defendant called on a telephone number which was registered on the National Do Not Call
11
Registry without prior express written consent from October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015.” (Stip. of
12
Settlement ¶ 8, ECF No. 22-1.)
13
B. Settlement Fund
14
Defendant agrees to establish a common settlement fund (“Settlement Fund”) in an
15
amount “not to exceed $660,000.” (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 19, ECF No. 22-1.) The Settlement
16
Fund will be used to compensate members of the Settlement Class, to pay an enhancement award
17
to Plaintiff, and to pay for attorney’s fees and costs incurred by class counsel. (Stip. of
18
Settlement ¶ 19, ECF No. 22-1.)
19
C. Compensation for Class Members
20
All members of the Settlement Class who do not opt out of the settlement and who submit
21
a valid claim will be entitled to a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, up to $200 per class
22
member. (Stip. of Settlement ¶¶ 17, 21, ECF No. 22-1.)
23
D. Attorney’s Fees
24
Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, “Defendant shall not object to or oppose an
25
application to the Court by counsel for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class for an award of up to
26
$199,500 in [attorney’s] fees, plus up to $15,000 in costs and expenses.” (Stip. of Settlement ¶
27
24, ECF No. 22-1.)
28
///
3
1
E. Enhancement Award to Plaintiff
2
Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, “Defendant shall not object to or oppose an
3
application to the Court by the named Plaintiff for a service payment (enhancement award) of up
4
to $10,000.” (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 25, ECF No. 22-1.)
5
F. Distribution of Settlement Fund
6
The Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows: First, attorney’s fees and costs will be
7
deducted from the Settlement Fund and an enhancement award will be paid to Plaintiff. (Stip. of
8
Settlement ¶¶ 21, ECF No. 22-1.) After that, all members of the Settlement Class who do not opt
9
out and who submit a valid claim will receive a pro-rata share of the settlement fund not to
10
exceed $200 per eligible Settlement Class member. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 21, ECF No. 22-1.) If
11
any money remains in the Settlement Fund after all claims have been paid, the remaining funds
12
will be distributed to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse as a cy pres recipient. (Stip. of Settlement ¶
13
21, ECF No. 22-1.) Privacy Rights Clearinghouse is a California nonprofit with the mission of
14
engaging, educating, and empowering individuals to protect privacy. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 21,
15
ECF No. 22-1.) No amount of the settlement fund will revert back to Defendant. (Stip. of
16
Settlement ¶ 21, ECF No. 22-1.)
17
G. Release
18
Under the terms of the settlement, class members who do not opt out will release their
19
claims against Defendant and affiliated persons for telephone calls made in violation of state or
20
federal law that could have been brought in the instant lawsuit. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 28, ECF
21
No. 22-1.) Class members also agree to release any and all rights conferred by California Civil
22
Code § 1542, or any state, federal, or common law equivalent. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 29, ECF No.
23
22-1.) California Civil Code § 1542 states: “A general release does not extend to claims which
24
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the
25
release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the
26
debtor.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1542.
27
///
28
///
4
1
2
III.
ANALYSIS
The Ninth Circuit has declared a strong judicial policy favoring the settlement of class
3
actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). But in cases like
4
the instant one, where the parties reach a settlement agreement before any class is certified, courts
5
must “peruse the proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the
6
fairness of the settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003).
7
The first question—should this class be certified?—is controlled by Rule 23(a) and 23(b).
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b). Although the Parties agree that the proposed class should be certified
9
for the purposes of settlement, the Court cannot simply rely on their agreement in the interest of
10
promoting settlement. Unlike fully litigated class actions, class action settlements do not provide
11
courts with future opportunities “to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold.”
12
Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). As a result, the Court must pay
13
“undiluted, even heightened” attention to the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). Id. The second
14
question—should this proposed settlement be approved?—is guided by Rule 23(e) and a
15
balancing of several factors. Staton, 327 F.3d at 959. The Court must carefully consider whether
16
the proposed settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable” while recognizing it is
17
“the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be
18
examined for overall fairness.” Id. at 959–60.
19
The approval of a class action settlement takes place in two phases. In the first phase, “the
20
[C]ourt preliminarily approve[s] the [s]ettlement pending a fairness hearing, temporarily
21
certifie[s] the Class . . . and authorizes notice to be given to the Class.” Alberto v. GMRI, Inc.,
22
252 F.R.D. 652, 658 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (some alterations in original). See also Newberg on Class
23
Actions § 13:10 (5th ed.). In the second phase, after notice is given to class members, the Court
24
will hold a fairness hearing to consider class members’ objections to (1) treating the litigation as a
25
class action and (2) the terms of the settlement. Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 659. In the instant Order,
26
the Court considers whether the proposed settlement warrants preliminary approval and lays the
27
groundwork for a future fairness hearing. Id. After the fairness hearing, the Court will make a
28
final determination as to whether the Parties should be allowed to settle the case according to the
5
1
terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
2
A. Certification of the Settlement Class
3
A class must clear two hurdles prior to certification. First, the class must satisfy the
4
requirements of Rule 23(a), which apply to all class actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Second, the
5
class must fit within at least one of the three categories of class action enumerated in Rule 23(b).
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 345 (2011).
7
8
9
i.
Rule 23(a)
Rule 23(a) provides four perquisites that must be met before a class may be certified. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a). Those prerequisites are commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality,
10
typicality, and adequacy of representation. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th
11
Cir. 1998).
12
13
a. Numerosity
The first Rule 23(a) prerequisite is numerosity. The class must be “so numerous that
14
joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The numerosity requirement
15
does not impose a precise numerical threshold. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. Equal Employment
16
Opportunity Comm'n, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980). In the instant case, there are approximately
17
22,998 members of the Settlement Class. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 22-6.) Plainly, this class
18
is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. Cf. Staton, 327 F.3d at 953
19
(finding numerosity to be satisfied by a 15,000 member class).
20
b. Commonality
21
The second Rule 23(a) prerequisite is commonality. There must be “questions of law or
22
fact that are common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality exists when class
23
members’ claims depend upon a common contention that is “capable of classwide resolution—
24
which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
25
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. Class members’ claims
26
need not be identical to satisfy the commonality requirement. Shared legal issues stemming from
27
divergent factual predicates will suffice, as will disparate legal issues stemming from a shared
28
core of pertinent facts. Staton, 327 F.3d at 953.
6
1
Here, members of the Settlement Class share statutory claims for violations of the TCPA.
2
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used auto-dialers and/or artificial or prerecorded voices to make
3
unsolicited calls to him and other class members. (FAC ¶¶ 94–97, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff also
4
alleges that Defendant placed some of those calls to people whose phone numbers are listed on
5
the National Do Not Call Registry. (FAC ¶ 105, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
6
knowingly and intentionally violated the TCPA. (FAC ¶ 98, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff’s allegations
7
give rise to several common questions, including but not limited to: (1) whether Defendant used
8
an auto-dialer or prerecorded message to make unsolicited calls to class members on their cellular
9
phones, without their written consent; (2) whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA; (3)
10
whether Defendant acted willfully; (4) whether Defendant systematically made calls to people
11
whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. These are the
12
operative questions in the instant case, and they are the same for all class members. Thus, the
13
class action vehicle can “resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in
14
one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
15
c. Typicality
16
The third Rule 23(a) prerequisite is typicality. The representative plaintiff’s claims must
17
be “typical of the claims . . . of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The purpose of the typicality
18
requirement is to ensure that the representative plaintiff and the class members’ interests are
19
aligned. Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). “Under
20
[Rule 23(a)’s] permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-
21
extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon,
22
150 F.3d at 1020. “The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar
23
injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and
24
whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Wolin, 617 F.3d
25
at 1175.
26
In the instant case, the class claims are the same as Plaintiff’s—namely, that Defendant
27
unlawfully made unsolicited calls using an auto-dialer and that Defendant called people registered
28
on the National Do Not Call Registry. There is no indication that Plaintiff’s claims are unique in
7
1
any way. The Settlement Class includes “[a]ll persons whom Defendant called for marketing
2
purposes on a cellular telephone without prior express written consent from October 16, 2013 to
3
May 15, 2015” and “all persons whom Defendant called on a telephone number which was
4
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry without prior express written consent from
5
October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015.” (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 8, ECF No. 22-1.) Plaintiff alleges
6
that Defendant called him for marketing purposes on his cellular phone during the relevant period
7
and also called him during the relevant period even though he was registered on the National Do
8
Not Call Registry. (FAC ¶¶ 1–3, ECF No. 17.) His claims are typical of the class.
9
10
d. Adequacy of Representation
The final Rule 23(a) prerequisite is adequacy of representation. “[T]he representative
11
parties [must] fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In
12
determining whether that requirement is met, the Court asks two questions: (1) do the
13
representative plaintiff and his counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members
14
and (2) will the representative plaintiff and his counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf
15
of the class? Staton, 327 F.3d at 957 (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). The adequacy of
16
representation requirement “tend[s] to merge” with the commonality and typicality requirements
17
because all three are aimed at the same essential questions: “whether under the particular
18
circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s
19
claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly
20
and adequately protected in their absence.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349 n.5.
21
The first question is whether there are conflicts of interest. Here, Plaintiff asserts that he
22
“shares the same interests in securing relief for the claims in this case as every other member of
23
the proposed settlement class and there is no evidence of any conflict of interest.” (Mot. 10:14–
24
16, ECF No. 22.) As discussed above, Plaintiff’s claims are essentially identical to those of other
25
members of the Settlement Class. At this time, the Court is unaware of any evidence that
26
suggests a conflict between the interests of class members and the interests of either Plaintiff or
27
his counsel. The Settlement Class does not appear to include any members whose claims Plaintiff
28
cannot or would not represent fairly and adequately because the class is limited by date range and
8
1
2
by the type of conduct alleged. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 8, ECF No. 22-1.)
The second question is whether Plaintiff and his counsel will prosecute the action
3
vigorously. “Although there are no fixed standards by which ‘vigor’ can be assayed,
4
considerations include competency of counsel and, in the context of a settlement-only class, an
5
assessment of the rationale for not pursuing further litigation.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021.
6
Plaintiff’s counsel has extensive experience in TCPA class action litigation and has often served
7
as class counsel in such cases. (Hughes Decl. ¶¶ 2–4, ECF No. 22-6.) Plaintiff’s counsel has also
8
devoted significant resources to investigating and prosecuting the case, and Plaintiff assures the
9
Court that his counsel will continue to do so “throughout [the case’s] pendency.” (Mot. 11:1,
10
ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff himself has also assisted his counsel throughout the development of this
11
lawsuit and settlement, dedicating his own time to developing the case against Defendant and
12
involving himself in the mediation and settlement efforts. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 33, ECF No 22-6.) At
13
this time, the Court finds no reason to believe that Plaintiff and his counsel are anything other
14
than competent.
15
Why Plaintiff and his counsel elected to settle rather than pursue further litigation is a
16
more difficult question because settlement agreements often “are presented with a ‘bargain
17
proffered for approval . . . without the benefit of an adversarial investigation.’” Hanlon, 150 F.3d
18
at 1021 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621). Plaintiff’s counsel declares that settlement was the
19
right course “given the inherent risk of litigation, the risk relative to class certification, the
20
amount that each Settlement Class member could recover at trial, and the costs of pursuing such
21
litigation.” (Hughes Decl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 22-6.) Absent any indication to the contrary, that
22
calculation, informed by counsel’s extensive experience in TCPA class actions, suffices at this
23
stage. The adequacy of representation requirement is satisfied.
24
25
ii.
Rule 23(b)
A proposed class action must also fit within at least one of the three categories of class
26
actions laid out in Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Dukes, 564 U.S. at 345. Here, Plaintiff
27
seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). (Mot. 11:7–14, ECF No. 22.) Rule 23(b)(3) provides
28
that a class may be certified if that Court finds that “the questions of law and fact common to
9
1
class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
2
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
3
controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). These requirements are commonly known as
4
predominance and superiority. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615.
5
a. Predominance
6
Common questions of law and fact must predominate over individual questions. Fed. R.
7
Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry assesses whether the proposed class is “sufficiently
8
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623. “This analysis
9
presumes that the existence of common issues of fact or law have been established pursuant to
10
Rule 23(a)(2),” but it goes a step further and focuses on the relationship between common and
11
individual issues. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. “When common questions present a significant
12
aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication,
13
there is clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual
14
basis.” Id.
15
Here, the common questions discussed in conjunction with Rule 23(a)(2) also
16
predominate over any individual issues. Again, those common questions include: (1) whether
17
Defendant used an auto-dialer or prerecorded message to make unsolicited calls to class members
18
on their cellular phones, without their written consent; (2) whether Defendant’s conduct violated
19
the TCPA; (3) whether Defendant acted willfully; and (4) whether Defendant systematically
20
made calls to people whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.
21
At this time, the Court is unaware of any individual questions that may arise in the case other than
22
the calculation of statutory damages. Individual damages calculations cannot defeat certification.
23
Yokoyama v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); Blackie v. Barrack,
24
524 F.2d 891, 905 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The amount of damages is invariably an individual question
25
and does not defeat class action treatment.”). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that
26
common issues predominate.
27
///
28
///
10
1
b. Superiority
2
Finally, a Rule 23(b)(3) class action must be “superior to other available methods for
3
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). If there are no
4
viable alternatives to a class action, the class action method is necessarily superior. Local Joint
5
Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th
6
Cir. 2001).
7
In the instant case, there are approximately 22,998 members of the proposed settlement
8
class. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 22-6.) The TCPA fixes statutory damages at $500 for each
9
violation, with the possibility of treble damages if a court finds that a defendant violated the Act
10
“willfully or knowingly.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3); id. at § 227(c)(5). Many class members would
11
have little incentive to prosecute their own claims because the opportunity for recovery pales in
12
comparison to the expense and burden of litigation. Cf. Las Vegas Sands, 244 F.3d at 1163
13
(recognizing that, in a case involving “claims for relatively small individual sums” of up to
14
$1,330, the disparity between optimal recovery and litigation costs would prevent many class
15
members from proceeding individually). This fact alone supports certification. Wolin, 617 F.3d
16
at 1176. Moreover, class action adjudication in the instant case is superior to multifarious
17
lawsuits brought by individual class members across the country, because Defendant is subject to
18
personal jurisdiction in this District and venue is proper. (Def.’s Answer to FAC (“Answer”)
19
¶¶ 10, 12–13, ECF No. 21.) Finally, there are not likely to be any difficulties in managing this
20
case as a class action because the proposal is that there will be no trial. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620.
21
The Court finds that the superiority requirement is met.
22
B. Rule 23(e): Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of the Proposed Settlement
23
Having concluded that class treatment appears to be warranted, the Court now considers
24
whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2);
25
Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 664. In making this inquiry, the Court should weigh the strength of
26
Plaintiff’s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the stage of
27
the proceedings; and the value of the settlement offer. Collins v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.,
28
274 F.R.D. 294, 301 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “Given that some of these ‘fairness’ factors cannot be
11
1
fully assessed until the Court conducts the final approval hearing, ‘a full fairness analysis is
2
unnecessary at this stage.’” Tijero v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 301 F.R.D. 314, 324 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
3
(quoting Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 665).
4
Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is appropriate if 1)
5
the proposed settlement appears to be the product of “serious, informed, noncollusive
6
negotiations,” 2) the proposed settlement has no obvious deficiencies, 3) the proposed settlement
7
does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class,
8
and 4) the proposed settlement falls with the range of possible approval. Collins, 274 F.R.D. at
9
301–02 (citing In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).
10
11
12
The Court evaluates those factors in turn.
i.
Settlement Negotiations
The settlement process began in January 2015 when the Parties commenced informal
13
discovery and exchanged confidential documents related to the case. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 5,
14
ECF No. 22-1.) According to the Parties, they “achieved a reasonable sense of the strengths and
15
weaknesses of their claims” through that process. (Stip of Settlement ¶ 5, ECF No. 22-1.) In
16
February 2015, the Parties attended mediation with a retired judge who acted as an independent,
17
third-party neutral. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 5, ECF No. 22-1.) The Parties reached a settlement
18
during that mediation, subject to confirmatory discovery and this Court’s approval. (Stip. of
19
Settlement ¶ 5, ECF No. 22-1.) The Parties represent that they did not discuss attorney’s fees or
20
costs until after a tentative settlement agreement had been reached regarding the class claims.
21
(Stip. of Settlement ¶ 5, ECF No. 22-1.) The Stipulation of Settlement recounts the confirmatory
22
discovery process as follows:
23
24
25
26
27
28
[O]n February 26, 2015 Plaintiff’s counsel sent a combine [sic]
fifty-six (56) Requests for Production of Documents and
Interrogatories to Defendant, in addition to the one-hundred and
twenty-two (122) previously sent written discovery requests. On
April 1, 2015, Plaintiff received and reviewed Defendant’s
responses and production of documents. Defendant produced over
33,500 pages of documents and four separate audio recordings, all
reviewed and analyzed by Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm the claims
of the Settlement Class in this Action. As a result of what
Plaintiff’s counsel learned from the documents and information
produced by Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel served a third-party
12
1
2
3
4
subpoena for production of documents to Azevedo Marketing
Solutions (“AVS”) in Santa Rosa, California, on April 1, 2015 to
confirm the representations made by Defendant in its discovery
responses. On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel received,
reviewed, and confirmed the additional information and documents
produced by AVS in response to the subpoena. Plaintiff’s counsel
also received and reviewed supplemental responses to a number of
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.
5
6
(Stip. of Settlement ¶ 6, ECF No. 22-1.) The instant motion for preliminary approval of the class
7
settlement was filed on May 19, 2015. (Mot., ECF No. 22.)
8
9
On the current record, the proposed settlement appears to be the product of informed,
noncollusive negotiations. The Parties exchanged information prior to mediation, negotiated their
10
settlement before a neutral mediator, and did not finalize their proposed settlement until
11
confirmatory discovery after mediation. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 5, ECF No. 22-1.) “The fact that
12
the [P]arties reached an agreement before an experienced mediator, while commendable, does not
13
preclude a detailed review of the settlement terms.” Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 663. Nevertheless, at
14
the preliminary approval stage, the Court is satisfied that the settlement was not the product of
15
collusion or uninformed decision making.
16
ii.
Lack of Obvious Deficiencies
17
The proposed settlement provides for a Settlement Fund of up to $660,000. (Stip. of
18
Settlement ¶ 19, ECF No. 22-1.) Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Settlement Fund
19
will be used to pay the valid claims of class members who do not opt out, to pay an enhancement
20
award to Plaintiff, and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 19, ECF No. 22-1.)
21
To receive payment under the settlement, a class member must submit a valid claim and not
22
timely opt out of the class. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 17, ECF No. 22-1.) Settlement funds will be
23
distributed to eligible class members on a pro rata basis up to $200, to be paid out of the
24
Settlement Fund after attorney’s fees, costs, and Plaintiff’s enhancement award have been
25
deducted. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 21, ECF No. 22-1.)
26
There is nothing obviously deficient about how settlement funds will be distributed.
27
There may be some class members who do not opt out, thereby releasing their claims against
28
Defendant, but who also do not submit a valid claim form and therefore do not receive payment
13
1
under the settlement. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for a settlement to require class members
2
to submit valid claims, even though some class members may fail to do so, going uncompensated
3
for releasing their claims. E.g., Tijero, 301 F.R.D. at 319–20.
At this time, the Court has reservations about the attorney’s fees award. Before the Court
4
5
can conclude that a settlement is fair and adequate, the Court must “carefully assess the
6
reasonableness of a fee amount spelled out in a class action settlement agreement.” Staton, 327
7
F.3d at 963. The Court has discretion to use either the percentage method or the lodestar method
8
to calculate attorney’s fees in common fund cases. Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 667 (citing In re Wash.
9
Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1994)). “As always, when
10
determining [attorney’s] fees, the district court should be guided by the fundamental principle that
11
fee awards out of common funds be ‘reasonable under the circumstances.’” Id. at 1296
12
(emphasis in original) (quoting State of Fla. v. Dunne, 915 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1990)). In the
13
Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for attorney’s fees using the percentage method is 25%. Hanlon,
14
150 F.3d at 1029. But the Ninth Circuit has also stated that “[t]he 25% benchmark rate, although
15
a starting point for analysis, may be inappropriate in some cases. Selection of the benchmark or
16
any other rate must be supported by findings that take into account all of the circumstances of the
17
case.” Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002).
According to the Stipulation of Settlement, attorney’s fees and costs may comprise up to
18
19
32.5% of the settlement fund, and attorney’s fees alone may comprise up to roughly 30%.1
20
Plaintiff’s counsel avers that it will seek an award of approximately 28%. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 34,
21
ECF No. 22-6.) Although nothing in the current record suggests that the proposed settlement is
22
the product of collusion, neither does the current record provide direct support for either a 25%
23
award or a 28% award. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that it will submit a “separate application for
24
counsel’s fees and costs detailing why [it] should be entitled to the additional 3% over the
25
benchmark award of 25% for attorney’s fees.” (Hughes Decl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 22-6.) That
26
1
27
28
The value of the Settlement Fund will be up to $660,000. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 19, ECF No. 22-1.) The
Stipulation of Settlement states that attorney’s fees will be up to $199,500 and that costs will be up to $15,000. (Stip.
of Settlement ¶ 24, ECF No. 22-1.) $199,500 (attorney’s fees) + $15,000 (costs) = $214,500. $214,500 (attorney’s
fees and costs) ÷ $660,000 (Settlement Fund) = .325 = 32.5%. Even excluding costs, attorney’s fees alone will
amount to over 30%. $199,500 (attorney’s fees) ÷ $660,000 (Settlement Fund) ≈ .302 ≈ 30.2%.
14
1
application should also provide a justification for why the 25% benchmark is itself reasonable.
2
iii.
3
No Improper Preferential Treatment
The Court also has concerns about the propriety of a $10,000 enhancement award for
4
Plaintiff. “[N]amed plaintiffs, as opposed to designated class members who are not named
5
plaintiffs, are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 977 (emphasis
6
added). To ensure that an incentive award is not excessive, the Court considers “the number of
7
named plaintiffs receiving incentive payments, the proportion of the payments relative to the
8
settlement amount, and the size of each payment.” Id.
9
In the instant case, the Stipulation of Settlement contemplates a $10,000 enhancement
10
award for Plaintiff. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 25, ECF No. 22-1.) This award represents 1.5% of the
11
total settlement fund of $660,000. Plaintiff cites Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09-
12
cv-00261-SBA, 2012 WL 5878390, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012), to illustrate that a $10,000
13
incentive award does not necessarily preclude preliminary approval. (Mot. 16:8–10, ECF No.
14
22.) But in Villegas, the settlement fund at the preliminary approval stage was worth $9,225,000,
15
so a $10,000 incentive award was only .1% of the settlement fund. Villegas, No. 09-cv-00261-
16
SBA, 2012 WL 5878390, at *2, 7. Here, the proposed enhancement award constitutes a much
17
greater portion of the overall Settlement Fund, so Villegas does not automatically sanction such
18
an award. The proposed $10,000 enhancement award in this case also appears highly
19
disproportionate to the payments other members of the Settlement Class will receive. After
20
attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and Plaintiff’s enhancement award are deducted from the
21
settlement fund, there will be roughly $435,000 in the fund to compensate class members.
22
(Hughes Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 22-6.) If every member of the Settlement Class submits a valid
23
claim, each class member will receive less than $19.2 Plaintiff’s counsel estimates based on
24
claim-submission rates in past cases that class members who submit valid claims will receive
25
“anywhere [from] $100 or more.” (Hughes Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 22-6.) In either case, there is a
26
large disparity between what class members will receive and what Plaintiff will receive.
27
2
28
The approximate value of the Settlement Fund less attorney’s fees, costs, and Plaintiff’s proposed
enhancement award is $435,000. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 22-6.) $435,000 ÷ 22,998 class members ≈ $18.91.
15
1
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff has been actively involved in the settlement of the
2
instant case:
3
Plaintiff has regularly consulted with me and my Firm throughout
this case regarding its progress, and has supplied documents about
the claims and allegations made against [Defendant]. He also
provided his opinions on the terms of the class relief being
negotiated at mediation and throughout the drafting of the
settlement documents. . . . Plaintiff is the proposed Class
Representative for the Settlement Class and has actively and
aggressively represented the proposed class throughout this
litigation. Plaintiff was always available to provide his input on the
litigation, gather evidence and other information that proved helpful
to the prosecution. The enhancement is fair given the amount of the
overall settlement and the time and effort Plaintiff spent on
assisting our Firm in the prosecution of this case.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(Hughes Decl. ¶ 33, ECF No. 22-6.) At the time specified in the Conclusion of this Order,
11
Plaintiff should present specific evidence of his efforts in this case justifying the large
12
discrepancy between his enhancement award and the payments to unnamed class members.
13
Alberto, 252 F.R.D. at 669. Although the size of the enhancement award does not prevent
14
preliminary approval of the settlement, it may be subject to reduction before final approval.
15
iv.
Range of Possible Approval
16
In order to determine whether a settlement falls within the range of possible approval, a
17
court must focus on “substantive fairness and adequacy” and “consider [the] expected recovery
18
balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Collins, 274 F.R.D. at 302.
19
In the instant case, potential recovery is fixed by the TCPA: $500 per violation, with
20
treble damages for knowing and willful violations. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3); id. at 227(c)(5). The
21
most a class member will receive under the settlement is $200. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 21, ECF
22
No. 22-1.) Although there is a disparity between the potential recovery and the value of the
23
settlement, Plaintiff’s counsel avers that risks associated with class certification and ongoing
24
litigation justify lower compensation in exchange for certainty of recovery. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 25,
25
ECF No. 22-6.) At the preliminary approval state, the Court finds that the proposed settlement
26
falls within the range of possible approval.
27
///
28
///
16
1
C. The Notice Plan
2
“Adequate notice is critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).”
3
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025. For a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must direct to
4
class members “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual
5
notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6
23(c)(2)(B). That notice must “clearly and concisely state, in plain, easily understood language,”
7
the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the class claims, issues, or defenses;
8
that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the class member so desires;
9
that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; the time and
10
manner for requesting exclusion; and the binding effect of a class judgment on members under
11
Rule 23(c)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
12
Here, the Notice Plan satisfies all of those requirements. Defendant represents that it has
13
mailing addresses for roughly 99% of the settlement class. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 23(a), ECF No.
14
22-1.) After the instant Order issues, Defendant will provide those names and addresses to the
15
Settlement Administrator. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 23(a), ECF No. 22-1.) The Settlement
16
Administrator will then perform any necessary address updates and verifications, and mail the
17
Postcard Notice (ECF No. 22-3) to each of the identified settlement class members. (Stip. of
18
Settlement ¶ 23(a), ECF No. 22-1.) In addition to directing notice by mail, the Settlement
19
Administrator will publish a website at www.PESettlement.com (or a similar name if the
20
proposed name is unavailable) that will set forth a summary of the settlement terms and provide
21
instructions for how class members can opt out, make claims, object, or otherwise participate in
22
the settlement. (Stip. of Settlment ¶ 23(b), ECF No. 22-1.) The settlement website will also
23
provide PDFs of the Stipulation of Settlement (ECF No. 22-1), complaint (ECF No. 17), answer
24
(ECF No. 21), claim form (ECF No. 22-2), opt-out form (ECF No. 22-5), long-form notice (ECF
25
No. 22-4), and the instant Order. (Stip. of Settlement ¶ 23(b), ECF No. 22-1.)
26
The Postcard Notice adequately sets forth the details of the case and settlement. It
27
describes what the case is about, who is included, the settlement terms, relevant dates, and how a
28
class member may appear before the Court. (Postcard Notice, ECF No. 22-3.) The Postcard
17
1
Notice also sets forth in bold typeface that class members must submit a valid claim form to be
2
compensated and that the settlement will affect class members’ legal rights. (Postcard Notice,
3
ECF No. 22-3.)
4
The documents that will be sent to members of the Settlement Class currently contain
5
placeholder dates highlighted in yellow, to be updated after the instant Order issues. (E.g.,
6
Postcard Notice, ECF No. 22-3.) Some of those dates are highlighted placeholders with respect
7
to the month and day, but have an out-of-date year that is not highlighted in yellow. For example,
8
the opt-out form currently states “This Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Form Must Be
9
Postmarked No Later Than [DATE], 2015.” (Opt-out Form, ECF No. 22-5.) The Parties shall
10
review all documents that will be sent to members of the Settlement Class to ensure that the dates
11
indicated are accurate and comply with the deadlines set forth in the Conclusion of the instant
12
Order. Subject to compliance with that requirement, the Court finds that the Notice Plan is the
13
best practicable method under the circumstances.
14
15
16
17
18
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby orders as follows:
1. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified for settlement purposes in
accordance with the terms of the Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement.
2. If the Stipulation of Settlement does not receive the Court’s final approval, should
19
final approval be reversed on appeal, or should the Stipulation of Settlement
20
otherwise fail to become effective for any reasons, the Court’s provisional grant of
21
class certification shall be vacated without further action or order of the Court.
22
3. The Stipulation of Settlement is preliminarily approved and will be subject to final
23
24
25
26
27
28
approval at the fairness hearing.
4. Plaintiff Matthew Scott Robinson is appointed as class representative for the
purpose of carrying out the Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement.
5. W. Craft Hughes and Jarrett L. Ellzey of Hughes Ellzey, LLP are appointed as
class counsel for the purpose of carrying out the Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement.
6. CPT Group, Inc. is approved and appointed as Settlement Administrator.
18
1
7. The Parties shall update all Notice Plan documents to ensure that the dates
2
indicated are accurate and comply with the deadlines set forth herein. Provided
3
the Parties comply with that directive, the Court approves, as to form and content,
4
the Notice Plan.
5
8. Consistent with ¶ 27 of the Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement, any objections to the
6
proposed settlement must be served on the Parties and filed with the Court no later
7
than 90 days from the date the Postcard Notices are first mailed.
8
9. Members of the Settlement Class who object to the proposed settlement are not
9
required to appear at the final fairness hearing. However, persons wishing to be
10
heard orally in opposition to the approval of the proposed settlement are required
11
to state in their written objection whether they intend to appear at the hearing.
12
Persons who intend to object to the proposed settlement and desire to present
13
evidence at the final fairness hearing must include in their written objections the
14
identity of any person from whom they may obtain a declaration and exhibits they
15
intend to introduce into evidence at the final fairness hearing.
10. Plaintiff shall file motions for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses no later than
16
17
14 days before the date by which members of the Settlement Class must file and
18
deliver their written objections to the proposed settlement. Plaintiff shall file
19
documentation supporting his enhancement award at the same time.
20
11. The Parties shall meet and confer as to possible dates for the final fairness hearing
21
and file with the Court a proposed date within 30 days of the entry of this Order.
22
12. The Court may continue the final fairness hearing without further notice to
23
members of the Settlement Class.
24
13. The Parties shall file briefing within 30 days of the entry of this Order on whether
25
the Parties provided notice required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
26
///
27
///
28
///
19
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
DATED:
JANUARY 09, 2017
4
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?