Bottoni et al v. SLM Corporation et al

Filing 143

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 138 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District Of California

10

San Francisco Division

11 ANGELO BOTTONI, PAUL ROBERTS;
TRACIE SERRANO, and SHAWNEE
12 SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15 SALLIE MAE, INC., and DOES 1 through
1,000, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20

23
24
25

ORDER (1) CONDITIONALLY
CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; (2)
PROVISIONALLY APPOINTING CLASS
COUNSEL AND CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES; (3)
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING
SETTLEMENT; (4) APPROVING
NOTICE TO CLASS; (5) SETTING
HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FEES AND
COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD; AND (6)
TEMPORARILY ENJOINING CLASS
MEMBERS FROM ASSERTING
RELEASED CLAIMS

INTRODUCTION

21
22

No. C 10-03602 LB

Plaintiffs are four former students at the California Culinary Academy who took out
private (not federally-guaranteed) student loans serviced by Sallie Mae, Inc. (“Sallie Mae”) and
thereafter defaulted on the loans. Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 37 at 3, 5-8, ¶¶ 8-10, 2233.1 Each of the plaintiffs signed promissory note(s), which provided that they agreed to pay
reasonable collection costs incurred by the note holder in enforcing the terms of the notes. Id. at 4,

26
27

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronically-generated
28 page numbers at the top of the document.

C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 ¶ 14. Upon each plaintiff’s default, Sallie Mae charged off the loan and placed it with one of
2 numerous third-party collection agencies for collection. Id. at 4, ¶ 16; Valerian Decl. ¶ 14. At the
3 time of charge-off, Sallie Mae assessed a “Collection Cost Assessment” (generally 25% of the
4 unpaid balance), generally reflecting the contingency fees charged to Sallie Mae by its collection
5 agencies on amounts collected. Valerian Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.
6

The operative complaint charges six claims based on Sallie Mae’s collection fees and debt

7 collection practices: (1) a violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1671(b), which prohibits unreasonable
8 liquidated damages provisions in contracts; (2) violations of California Business & Professions
9 Code § 17200 et seq., known as the Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unfair or unlawful
10 conduct; (3) a breach of the promissory note’s express terms, which allow only the collection of
11 reasonable and actually-incurred costs; (4) a cause of action for declaratory relief based on the
12 assessment, collection, and attempted collection of the collection fees; (5) a violation of the
13 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), California Civil Code § 1788 et seq.,
14 which prohibits the collection of unlawful fees and unlawful debt collection practices; and (6) a
15 violation of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code § 1785.1 et seq.,
16 which prohibits the furnishing of incomplete or inaccurate information to a credit reporting
17 bureau. Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 37 at 8-13.
18

Following some discovery (including document production by Sallie Mae of more than

19 20,000 pages of documents, Sallie Mae’s responses to interrogatories, and the depositions of all
20 plaintiffs) and two private mediation sessions with Judge Layn Phillips (Ret.), the parties reached
21 a settlement agreement, and on July 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an order:
22 (1) conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class and appointing Gallo LLP as class
23 counsel and plaintiffs as class representatives; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed
24 settlement; (3) approving the parties’ proposed form of notice and notice program, and directing
25 that notice be disseminated pursuant to this program; (4) setting a schedule for the fairness hearing
26 and other remaining procedures; and (5) temporarily enjoining plaintiffs, all class members, and
27 all persons purporting to act on behalf of class members from asserting, commencing, or
28 prosecuting any of the released claims against Sallie Mae or any of the other released parties. See
2
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 ECF No.138-2; Notice of Non-Opposition, ECF No. 138-2 at 3.
2

In summary form, the settlement agreement is as follows. See Settlement Agreement,

3 Valerian Decl. Exh. 1. Sallie Mae shall reduce the Collection Cost Assessment to 8.75% for each
4 of the class members’ private education loans. Settlement Agreement § III.B.1. For each loan
5 with an outstanding balance: 1) any and all amounts previously allocated toward collection costs
6 in excess of 8.75% of post charge-off payments shall be reallocated to principal, interest or other
7 fees in accordance with the terms of the promissory notes; in any case where this reallocation
8 satisfies the outstanding loan balance and results in a credit to the borrower, Sallie Mae shall issue
9 a refund in the amount of that credit; 2) prospectively, no more than 8.75% of any and all future
10 payments shall be allocated toward collection costs. Id. § III.B.1.(a). For loans that have been
11 paid or settled in full: 1) where the amount of collection costs paid in excess of the adjusted 8.75%
12 Collection Cost Assessment exceeds the amount that Sallie Mae wrote off in principal, interest and
13 other fees (excluding collection costs), Sallie Mae shall refund the difference; 2) where the amount
14 of collection costs paid in excess of the adjusted 8.75% Collection Cost Assessment is less than
15 the amount that Sallie Mae wrote off in principal, interest and other fees (excluding collection
16 costs), Sallie Mae shall refund the sum of forty dollars ($40). Id. § III.B.1.(b). All refund
17 payments shall be made by check payable to the borrower, except that in the case of loans that
18 have a co-borrower(s) or co-signer(s), payment shall be made by check payable jointly to the
19 borrower and co-borrower(s) or co-signer(s). Id. § III.B.1.(c). All refund checks not cashed
20 within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance shall be allocated as Cy Pres to Operation
21 HOPE, www.operationhope.org, within thirty (30) days, to provide services in California. Id. §
22 III.B.1.(d).
23

The settlement agreement will be administered by an independent claims administrator

24 called Kurtzman Carson Consultants, which will mail the notices (as described below), establish a
25 website, distribute funds to class members, and otherwise administer the settlement. Id. §§ II.M,
26 III.B.1.(d), III.E.
27

This order grants conditional class certification, preliminarily approves the settlement,

28 appoints the class representatives and class counsel, approves the plan for notice to the class, sets
3
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 the schedule for the final approval process (including plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and incentive
2 award), and temporarily enjoins class members from asserting released claims.
3

ANALYSIS

4 I. JURISDICTION
5

The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

6 II. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
7

For settlement purposes only, the parties propose conditional certification of the following

8 class:
[A]ll persons in California2 who, within the period from July 13, 2006 through May 31, 2013
(the “Class Period”), were assessed and/or paid a Collection Cost Assessment in connection
with a private education loan serviced by Sallie Mae, as identified in the class list to be
generated by Sallie Mae from its records using its best efforts.

9
10
11
12

Settlement Agreement § II.N.
The court reviews the propriety of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

13
23(a) and (b). In a settlement context, the court must pay “undiluted, even heightened, attention”
14
to class certification requirements because the court will not have the opportunity to adjust the
15
class based on information revealed at trial. See Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 952-53 (9th Cir.
16
2003) (quoting Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)); Hanlon v. Chrysler
17
Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998) (same).
18
The court finds that the proposed settlement class here meets the requirements of Federal
19
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).
20
A. Rule 23(a)
21
Class certification requires the following: (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of
22
all members individually is “impracticable;” (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
23
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the class representatives must be typical of the claims or
24
25
2

Persons shall be deemed to be “in California” if: 1) they were assessed a Collection Cost
Assessment during the Class Period while residing in California, or 2) they were a California
27 resident at the end of any month during the Class Period in which any payment was applied to
their Collection Cost Assessment. Settlement Agreement § II.N.
28
26

4
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 defenses of the class; and (4) the person representing the class must be able to fairly and
2 adequately protect the interests of all class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Staton, 327 F.3d
3 at 953.
4

Here, the factors support class certification. First, the class members – all identifiable from

5 Sallie Mae’s records – number at least 40,245 (Valerian Decl. ¶ 21), which makes joinder
6 impracticable. See Jordan v. County of L.A., 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir.), vacated on other
7 grounds, County of L.A. v. Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982). Second, each of the class members had
8 similar contract provisions allowing for assessment of collection costs “incurred” by Sallie Mae
9 and it appears that each of the class members had accounts for which Sallie Mae: (1) assessed a
10 Collection Cost Assessment, (2) attempted to collect the Collection Cost Assessment through
11 collection agencies, and (3) reported Collection Cost Assessments to credit reporting agencies.
12 Valerian Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, 16. This gives rise to common claims as well as common questions of
13 law and fact. Third, plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other class members: plaintiffs'
14 claims are co-extensive with the claims of absent class members because they were all subject to
15 the aforementioned Sallie Mae practices (Valerian Decl. ¶ 32) and their claims are based on the
16 same contractual rights and legal theories. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019-20 (claims are typical if
17 they are reasonably coextensive with that of absent class members; they need not be substantially
18 identical). Fourth, the named plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all
19 class members. The factors relevant to a determination of adequacy are as follows: (1) the
20 absence of potential conflict between the named plaintiff and the class members; and (2) counsel
21 chosen by the representative parties is qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the
22 proposed litigation. Id. at 1020. The court is satisfied that those factors exist here. As discussed
23 already, the named plaintiffs have shared claims and interests with the class. Also, plaintiffs have
24 retained qualified and competent counsel. See Valerian Decl. ¶¶ 35-36; Local Joint Executive Bd.
25 of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001);
26 Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir. 1992).
27
28

B. Rule 23(b)(3)
In addition to meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a proposed class must be appropriate
5
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 for certification under one of the categories in Rule 23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Hanlon, 150
2 F.3d at 1022. The court finds that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). Questions of
3 law and fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
4 members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The case involves multiple claims for relatively small
5 sums, and a class action is superior to an alternative method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
6 the claims. See Amchem Products, 521 U.S. at 625; Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund, 244 F.3d at
7 1163 (class action appropriate because “if plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class, some – perhaps
8 most – will be unable to proceed as individuals because of the disparity between their litigation
9 costs and what they hope to recover”).
10
11

C. Conclusion: Provisional Certification is Appropriate
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the court conditionally

12 certifies the class set forth above for the purpose of giving the class notice of the proposed
13 settlement in this matter, and conducting a fairness hearing.
14 III. APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL
15

For the reasons set forth in the previous section, the court appoints plaintiffs Angelo

16 Bottoni, Paul Roberts, Tracie Serrano, and Shawnee Silva as the class representatives. The court
17 finds provisionally that they have claims that are typical of the claims of class members generally
18 and that they are adequate representatives of the other members of the proposed class. The court
19 also provisionally finds that Ray Gallo and Dominic Valerian of Gallo LLP have sufficient
20 qualifications, experience, and expertise in prosecuting class action cases and appoints them as
21 class counsel for settlement purposes only.
22 IV. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
23

Procedurally, the approval of a class action settlement has two stages: (1) the preliminary

24 approval, which authorizes notice to the class; and (2) a final fairness hearing, where the court
25 determines whether the parties should be allowed to settle the class action on the agreed-upon
26 terms. In reviewing the proposed settlement, the court need not address whether the settlement is
27 ideal or the best outcome, but determines only whether the settlement is fair, free of collusion, and
28 consistent with plaintiffs’ fiduciary obligations to the class. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027. The
6
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 Hanlon court identified factors relevant to assessing a settlement proposal: (1) the strength of the
2 plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the
3 risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement;
4 (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceeding; (6) the experience and
5 views of counsel; (7) the presence of a government participant; and (8) the reaction of class
6 members to the proposed settlement. Id. at 1026 (citation omitted).
7

The court has evaluated the proposed settlement agreement for overall fairness under the

8 Hanlon factors and concludes that preliminary settlement is appropriate.
9

Under the proposed settlement, Sallie Mae would be limited to charging class members

10 8.75% Collection Cost Assessments and class members who settled their loans without paying any
11 collection costs in excess of the adjusted 8.75% Collection Cost Assessment will receive a forty
12 dollar refund. Settlement Agreement § III.B. This compromise appears reasonable in light of the
13 litigation costs and risks plaintiffs face, including that Sallie Mae could defeat class certification
14 altogether by showing that measuring class members’ damages (which could require a
15 determination of each class member’s actual collection costs) presents insurmountable
16 individualized issues. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2546 (2011)
17 (rejecting plaintiffs attempt to use a formulaic model to determine each class member’s damages
18 as impermissible “Trial by Formula.”). It also could exclude the significant number of borrowers
19 who signed arbitration agreements from the class and thereby effectively prevent them from
20 obtaining any relief. Motion at 20-21; Valerian Dec. ¶ 13.
21

Continued litigation also would result in significant costs, including additional work by

22 experts to calculate damages, and the litigation of motions for class certification and summary
23 judgment. Discovery could prove particularly costly as plaintiffs might reasonably choose to
24 depose some or all of Sallie Mae's thirty or more Collectors to establish their actual costs, and
25 potentially obtain their consumer databases. Motion at 22-23. In addition, this case presents
26 numerous potential appellate issues for both sides, which could extend the litigation for years.
27 These considerations weigh in favor of settlement. Id.
28

The settlement appears to treat all class members fairly. The only class members who fall
7
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 outside the 8.75% formula are borrowers who settled their loans without paying any collection
2 costs in excess of the adjusted 8.75% Collection Cost Assessment (after taking into account the
3 amount that Sallie Mae wrote off in principal, interest and other fees (excluding collection costs)).
4 These borrowers receive $40 instead. This appears to be reasonable compensation. The $5,000
5 incentive awards plaintiffs plan to request also appear to be appropriate to compensate plaintiffs
6 for their time and effort and for the risk they undertook in prosecuting the case against Sallie Mae.
7 Valerian Decl. ¶ 34.
8

The settlement is also the product of serious, non-collusive, arms’ length negotiations and

9 was reached during mediation before an experienced mediator, a retired Federal District Judge
10 with a national reputation. Valerian Decl. ¶¶ 24-25; Phillips Decl. ¶ 5. In sum, the court finds that
11 viewed as a whole, the proposed settlement is sufficiently “fair, adequate, and reasonable” such
12 that preliminary approval of the settlement is warranted. See Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv.
13 Comm’n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). The court
14 thus approves the settlement agreement preliminarily.
15 V. APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE
16

The court approves the proposed notice, which will be sent by electronic mail, to the extent

17 Sallie Mae has a valid email address for the settlement class member, and otherwise by U.S. Mail.
18 Settlement Agreement § III.E. The notice and other documents will also be available online at
19 www.bottoniclassaction.com. Id. Class members will have 45 days from the date the class notice
20 is sent to request exclusion or object to the settlement. This gives class members sufficient time to
21 consider their options and make a fully informed decision. See, e.g., Torrisi v. Tucson Elec.
22 Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) (approving notice sent 31 days before the deadline
23 for objections and 45 days before the hearing).
24

The court also finds that the notice fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably informs class

25 members of the following: (1) the nature of the litigation, the settlement class, the identity of class
26 counsel, and the essential terms of the settlement agreement; (2) the amounts that will be requested
27 as attorney’s fees, costs, and class representative incentive awards; (4) how to challenge or opt out
28 of the settlement, and the effect of failing to do so; (5) the time and place of the fairness hearing;
8
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

1 and (6) how to obtain additional information regarding this litigation, the settlement agreement
2 and the approval process.
3

In sum, the form of the notice is approved, and the manner of distributing the class notice

4 is approved.
5 VI. COMPLIANCE WITH CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT
6

On July31, 2013, Sallie Mae filed a declaration of compliance with the Class Action

7 Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. In that declaration, Sallie Mae’s counsel established that
8 on July 19, 2013, KCC mailed notice of the settlement agreement to the Attorney General of the
9 United States and the appropriate California state official. Id. According to the declaration, the
10 notice contains the documentation required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(1-8). See id. Any final
11 settlement approval will be more than 90 days after service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
12 VII.

OTHER ACTIONS ENJOINED/STAYED

13

Pending the fairness hearing, and in aid to this court’s jurisdiction to implement and

14 enforce the settlement, plaintiffs and all settlement class members and all persons purporting to act
15 on behalf of settlement class members are enjoined, individually, on a representative basis or in
16 any other capacity, from asserting, commencing, prosecuting, or continuing any of the released
17 claims against Sallie Mae or any of the other released parties in any action, arbitration or
18 proceeding in any court, arbitral forum or tribunal.
19 VIII. PROCEDURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
20

The schedule for dates and deadlines is set forth in the table below and discussed in the

21 sections that follow.
22
23
24
25
26
27

Event

Date

Deadline to send class notice
Deadline for plaintiffs to file motion for award of
attorney’s fees and costs and motion for incentive
awards to representative plaintiffs
Deadline for submission of objections or exclusion
requests to Settlement Administrator

21 days after issuance of this order

Deadline for plaintiffs to file motion for final approval

35 days before the fairness hearing
or 21 days if unopposed

28
9
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER

15 days after class notice is sent
45 days after class notice is sent

3

Deadline for plaintiffs to file Settlem Adminis
D
o
ment
strator
declaration id
d
dentifying cl member who subm
lass
rs
mitted
14 days before the fairness hearing
exclusion req
e
quests
Deadline to file response to objectio to final
D
f
es
ons
7d
days before th fairness h
he
hearing
approval or fee
a
f

4

Fairness hear
F
ring

1
2

5
6

A. Fairnes Hearing
ss
At the hearing, the court will de
h
etermine wh
hether to gran final certification of th
nt
he

he
ment
o
ss
nd
tiffs as class
7 settlement class, confirm th appointm of Gallo LLP as clas counsel an the plaint
presentatives finally app
s,
prove the sett
tlement agre
eement, and award the re
equested inc
centive
8 rep
wards to the class representatives and attorney’s f
c
d
fees and cost to class co
ts
ounsel.
9 aw
10
11

B. Mailing of Notice by No Later Than 21 D
g
b
r
Days From T
Today
The cou orders the parties (thr
urt
rough the Se
ettlement Ad
dministrator) to send the notice in
)

e
oved by this order within 21 days of t order as follows:
o
n
this
s
12 the form appro
13

1. The Set
ttlement Adm
ministrator will provide notice by el
w
lectronic mai to the extent Sallie
il,

ae
d
ress
s
lass member and otherw by U.S. Mail, to be
r,
wise
14 Ma has a valid email addr for the settlement cl
nt
resses of the settlement c
class membe according to Sallie M
er,
g
Mae’s
15 sen to the last known addr
cords.
16 rec
17

2. The Set
ttlement Adm
ministrator will establish and mainta an Intern site using a domain
w
h
ain
net
g

me
o
ment, on whic the class n
ch
notice will
18 nam of www.bottoniclassaction.com, dedicated to the settlem
19 be posted.
20

Class counsel shall file proof of distribution of notice a or before t final hear
f
n
at
the
ring.

21

C. Reques for Exclu
sts
usion from the Settlem ent
t

22

1. Class members may exclude themselves, or opt out, of the class set
m
y
r
f
ttlement, and that
d

quest for exc
clusion must be made in the manner set forth in t class not
the
tice.
23 req
24

2. To be excluded from the settlem
e
m
ment, the opt
t-out request must be po
t
ostmarked or submitted
r

ectronically no later than forty-five days after the date that th class notic is sent.
n
n
d
e
he
ce
25 ele
26

3. Not late than 10 da before th fairness h
er
ays
he
hearing, class counsel sha file a dec
s
all
claration

ement Admin
nistrator that identifies a settlement class memb for who the
t
all
t
bers
om
27 from the Settle
ttlement Adm
ministrator timely receiv valid exc
ved
clusion requ
uests, as well as any appa
l
arently
28 Set
10
0
C 10-03602 LB
OR
RDER

1 inv
valid exclusion requests with an expl
w
lanation of th reason(s) for their inv
he
)
validity.
2

D. Objections to the Settlement
S

3

1. Any cla member who has not opted out o the settlem and who wishes to o
ass
t
of
ment
o
object to the
e

4 fair
rness, reason
nableness or adequacy of the settlem
r
ment must do so in writin and must include the
o
ng
5 inf
formation ind
dicated on th class notic
he
ce.
6

2. Objecti
ions shall be filed with th court and served on c
he
d
class counsel and Sallie Mae’s
l,

7 cou
unsel, and must be postm
m
marked or de
elivered no la than 45 days after th date the c
ater
he
class notice
s
8 is sent.
9

3. Objecti
ions raised at the fairness hearing wi be limited to those pre
s
ill
d
eviously sub
bmitted in

iting. Any member of th class who does not tim serve s
m
he
o
mely
such a writte objection shall not be
en
10 wri
11 per
rmitted to raise such obje
ection, excep for good c
pt
cause shown and any m
n,
member of the class who
12 fail to object in the manne prescribed herein shal be deemed to have wai
ls
i
er
d
ll
d
ived, and shall be
13 for
reclosed from raising, an such objec
m
ny
ction.
14

4. If a sett
tlement class member hires an attorn to repres him or h the attor
s
ney
sent
her,
rney must

15 file a notice of appearance with the clerk of court n later than forty-five (4 days afte class
e
no
45)
er
16 not is sent.
tice
17
18

E. Deadlin for Subm
ne
mitting Moti Seeking Final Appr
ion
g
roval
Plaintif shall file a motion for final approv of the set
ff
val
ttlement and settlement a
agreement at
t

ast
irness hearin if the mot
ng
tion is oppos (i.e., if a timely objec
sed
ction to the
19 lea 35 days before the fai
m
east
t
e
g
ed.
20 settlement is made) or at le 10 court days before the hearing if unoppose
21
22

F. Deadlin for Petiti for Atto
ne
ion
orney’s Fees Costs, and Expenses
s,
d
Pursuan to In re Mercury Inter
nt
M
ractive Corp Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 98 994–95 (
p.
,
88,
(9th Cir.

10),
ounsel shall file with this court their p
f
s
petition for a award of attorney’s f
an
f
fees and
23 201 class co
mbursement of costs no later than 15 days after class notice is sent. The motion sha be heard
t
5
e
all
24 reim
t
he
h
25 at the time of th fairness hearing.
26
27

G. Plaintif and Cla Member Release
ffs’
ass
rs’
If, at th fairness he
he
earing, this court grants f
c
final approv to the sett
val
tlement and the

eement, then the named plaintiffs an each indiv
n
p
nd
vidual settlem class m
ment
member who
28 settlement agre
11
C 10-03602 LB
OR
RDER

1 does not timely opt out will release claims, as set forth in the settlement agreement, by operation
2 of this court’s entry of the judgment and final approval.
3
4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for

5 preliminary approval of class action settlement. This disposes of ECF No. 138.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 2, 2013
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER