Farrell et al v. United States Department of Defense et al

Filing 94

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 88 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Awarding Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHERRILL FARRELL, et al.,

Case No. 23-cv-04013-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
AWARDING REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 88

12
13
14

The Court held a Fairness Hearing on March 12, 2025 on Plaintiffs’ motion for class

15

certification, final approval of class action settlement, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

16

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion, the memorandum and declarations filed in support of

17

the motion, the settlement agreement and class notice, and relevant filings in the case. Good cause

18

appearing and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the settlement

19

class and grants final approval of the class action settlement, and finds as follows:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. The Court finds that certification of the following class is appropriate for settlement
purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2):
Veterans of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps who were administratively separated prior to September 20,
2011, and whose most recent Service separation document shows
their basis for discharge was sexual orientation, homosexual conduct,
homosexual admission, homosexual marriage, similar language, or a
policy title or number signifying separation for sexual orientation.
2. The Court finds that the class, which likely contains more than 30,000 members, is so
numerous that joinder is impractical, satisfying Rule 23(a)(1).
3. The Court finds that there are questions of law and fact common to the class, satisfying

1
2

• Whether Defendants violated class members’ equal protection rights by (1) issuing DD-

3

214s that identified class members’ actual or perceived sexual orientation, while not identifying

4

the actual or perceived sexual orientation of other veterans, and (2) maintaining a policy expressly

5

disclaiming an intention to systematically remove indicators of sexual orientation on class

6

members’ DD-214s following the repeal of DADT;

7

• Whether Defendants’ maintenance of a policy that refuses to systematically remove

8

indicators of sexual orientation from DD-214s is a continuing violation of class members’

9

constitutional right to privacy;

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), including:

12
13
14

• Whether Defendants have violated due process by maintaining a policy that refuses to
systematically remove sexual orientation indicators from DD-214s; and
• Whether the discharge upgrade and record correction processes that Defendants have put
in place are constitutionally inadequate.
4. The Court previously appointed named Plaintiffs Sherrill Farrell, James Gonzales, Jules

15

Sohn, and Lilly Steffanides to serve as Class Representatives, having demonstrated that their

16

claims are typical of those of the class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3), and that they have fairly and

17

adequately represented the class and have no conflicts of interest interfering with their ability to

18

represent absent class members, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4). The Court confirms that these four Class

19

Representatives satisfy the requirements to continue to serve as Class Representatives for the

20

certified class.

21

5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court previously found that

22

Impact Fund, Legal Aid at Work, King & Spalding LLP, and Haynes and Boone, LLP have the

23

requisite experience and resources necessary to represent the class and serve as Class Counsel for

24

the conditionally certified class. Taking into account the joint stipulation to substitute California

25

Women’s Law Center for Legal Aid at Work, the Court finds that Impact Fund, California

26

Women’s Law Center, King & Spalding LLP, and Haynes and Boone LLP satisfy the

27

requirements to continue serving as Class Counsel for the certified class. Class Counsel are

28

confirmed and shall oversee and perform the duties necessary to effectuate the settlement.
2

1
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and consistent with Ninth Circuit law. See In re

3

Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab., 654 F.3d, 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).

4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6. The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under

7. The Court finds that the settlement is the result of good faith, non-collusive arms-length

5

negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Settlement Class and

6

Defendants, after thorough factual and legal investigations. In granting final approval of the

7

settlement, the Court has considered the nature, strengths, and weaknesses of the claims, the relief

8

obtained on behalf of the Settlement Class, the release of claims in exchange for such relief, and

9

the fact that the settlement represents a compromise of the Parties’ respective positions.

10

Additionally, the Court finds that the terms of the settlement do not improperly grant preferential

11

treatment to any individual class member.

12

8. Class Counsel is awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

13

$350,000, which is the amount sought by Plaintiffs and the amount set forth in the Parties’

14

agreement. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice

15

Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412, and that the amount of $350,000 is reasonable under this

16

statute. Based on the information provided in Class Counsel’s declarations in support of the

17

motions for preliminary and final approval, and the Court’s familiarity with the procedural history

18

in this case, the Court finds that the hours compensated under an award of $350,000 are well

19

within the bounds of what was reasonable in this matter, and that such award does not exceed the

20

limits set forth by EAJA and the Ninth Circuit’s setting of allowable EAJA rates. This award of

21

fees and costs comports with the requirements of Rule 23.

22

9. The Court finds that the previously approved notice plan has been duly effectuated,

23

including distribution of class notice that fairly and adequately describes the proposed settlement

24

and how class members could object to or participate in the settlement. The Court further finds

25

that the Parties’ notice plan complies fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process,

26

and all other applicable laws.

27

10. The Court finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to class members to

28

participate in the proceedings convened to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
3

1

given final approval. The Court further finds that the response of class members to the settlement

2

supports final approval. No class member has objected to the settlement.

3

11. The Court orders the Parties to implement and comply with the terms of the settlement.

4

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Final Approval of

5
6

Class Action Settlement, and Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: March 12, 2025
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4