Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc.
Filing
478
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/18/15. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
OAKLAND DIVISION
7
8
9
SAMUEL MICHAEL KELLER, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION;
COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken
Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor
Complaint Filed: May 5, 2009
1
This matter (the “Lawsuits”) came before the Court for hearing on July 16, 2015, pursuant
2
to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Dkt. No.
3
1224, filed by Keller Named Plaintiffs Samuel Michael Keller, Bryan Cummings, LaMarr Watkins,
4
and Bryon Bishop, individually and as representatives of the Settlement Class defined in Paragraph
5
3 below, filed on July 2, 2015, on the application of the settling Parties for approval of the
6
Settlement set forth in the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (including
7
Exhibits) (“Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”).1
8
9
Due and adequate notice of the Settlement having been given to the Settlement Class; the
Court having carefully considered all papers filed and proceedings held herein, including the
10
objections to the proposed Settlement and/or fee petitions, the Memorandum of Points and
11
Authorities in Support of the Motion and the associated Declarations, the Settlement Agreement,
12
the arguments of counsel, and the record in this case; the Court otherwise being fully informed in
13
the premises; and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
14
AND DECREED that:
15
1.
The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
16
grants final approval to the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated into this
17
District Court Final Approval Order (“Order and Final Judgment”), and all terms used herein shall
18
have the same meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
19
20
2.
matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement Agreement.
21
22
This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Settlement Class Members and subject
3.
The Court confirms its previous certification of the following Settlement Class, for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Dkt. No. 1158-2. This Court also has before it a motion for final approval of a proposed class
action settlement in NCAA Player Likeness Litigation, No. 4:09-cv-1967-CW (Dkt. No. 1158-1),
between Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”), Collegiate Licensing Company LLC (“CLC”), and various
named plaintiffs (the “EA Settlement”). The two proposed class action settlements both concern
the alleged use of NCAA men’s football and basketball players’ names, images, and likenesses in
certain NCAA-Branded Videogames manufactured and distributed by EA. The parties have
coordinated the notice and claims administration of both settlements, as well as the various class
settlement deadlines. Because the two settlements are separate, however, the Court will issue
separate orders in each settlement, and has evaluated each proposed settlement on its own terms.
1
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
All NCAA Division I football and men’s basketball players (1) listed on a
roster published or issued by a school whose team was included in an NCAABranded Videogame originally published or distributed from May 4, 2003
through September 3, 2014 and (2) whose assigned jersey number appears on
a virtual player in the software, or whose photograph was otherwise included
in the software.
1
2
3
4
Excluded from the Settlement Class are EA, CLC, the NCAA, and their
officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or
partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; Class Counsel and their
employees and immediate family members; and the judicial officers and
associated court staff assigned to the Lawsuits and their immediate family
members.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The NCAA and the Released Parties shall retain all rights to assert that the Lawsuits may not be
certified as a class action except for settlement purposes.
4.
The Court confirms its previous appointment of Plaintiffs Samuel Michael Keller,
12
Bryan Cummings, LaMarr Watkins, and Bryon Bishop as the class representatives (“Class
13
Representatives” or “Keller Named Plaintiffs”) for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that these
14
Class Representatives have adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering
15
into and implementing the Settlement.
16
5.
The Court hereby approves Incentive Awards in the amount of $5,000 to Samuel
17
Michael Keller, $5,000 to Bryan Cummings, $5,000 to LaMarr Watkins, and $5,000 to Bryon
18
Bishop in accordance with Right of Publicity Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and
19
Incentive Awards (NCAA Settlement); finds that such awards are fair and reasonable; and orders
20
said awards to be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
21
6.
The Court confirms its previous appointment of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
22
and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that
23
Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and
24
implementing the Settlement.
25
7.
The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel (a) attorneys’ fees in the amount of
26
$5,800,000 (29% of the Settlement Fund) and (b) reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
27
$224,434.20. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, the Court has
28
considered and finds as follows.
2
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
8.
This Court has discretion to award fees either as a percentage of the common fund
2
established or pursuant to the lodestar method. Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir.
3
2000). Under either approach the focus should be on whether the “end result is reasonable.”
4
Id. The Court finds that under both methods the requested fees are reasonable.
5
6
7
9.
The Court finds that the attorneys’ fees award is fair and reasonable under the
percentage-of-the-recovery method based on the following factors:
(a)
The results obtained by counsel in this case. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 142
8
F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1303 (W.D. Wash. 2001), aff’d, 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002).
9
The Settlement provides significant relief to Settlement Class Members in the form
10
of a large cash fund from which they can claim damages. Indeed, it appears that the
11
combined fund from the NCAA and EA settlements represents approximately 50-
12
75% of the potential recovery at trial—an exceptional result.
13
(b)
The risks and complex issues involved in this case, which were significant and
14
required a high level of skill and high-quality work to overcome. See In re
15
Omnivision Tech., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Class Counsel
16
devoted significant time and effort to the prosecution of this case, which presented
17
unique legal issues involving, among other things, choice of law, copyright, First
18
Amendment issues, agency law, and ascertainability of a class in the context of right
19
of publicity claims.
20
(c)
The attorneys’ fees requested were entirely contingent upon success and counsel
21
risked time and effort and advanced costs with no guarantee of compensation. See In
22
re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1994).
23
Class Counsel bore a high degree of risk in bringing and pursuing this action,
24
including the considerable risk of non-payment, in particular because the case was
25
the first nationwide class action of its kind and thus untested. In addition, Class
26
Counsel faced the substantial risk of having to pay Defendant’s fees pursuant to the
27
fee-shifting provisions of California’s publicity rights statute, Cal. Civ. Code
28
§ 3344, and California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16.
3
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
(d)
2
3
Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp. 1373, 1377 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
(e)
4
5
The range of awards made in similar cases justifies an award of 29% here, see In re
The Settlement Class Members have been notified of the requested fees and had an
opportunity to inform the Court of any concerns they have with the request.
10.
These factors justify an upward adjustment of the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark.
6
As such, the Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the applicable law and is
7
justified by the circumstances of this case.
8
9
11.
Alternatively, the Court also finds the fees awarded reasonable using the “lodestar”
method. Under this method, the Court first calculates Class Counsel’s “lodestar” by multiplying the
10
hours worked by their hourly rate(s). This lodestar may then be adjusted upwards by a multiplier
11
based on the results obtained and the risk borne by Class Counsel. Here, the declarations submitted
12
by Class Counsel indicate that their lodestar is $6,771,390.75, based on a total of 20,061.3 hours
13
expended in the litigation. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s hourly rates are consistent with
14
hourly rates charged by firms and attorneys of comparable skill and experience located in this
15
district and nationwide. The Court also finds that the hours devoted to this case were reasonable
16
given the complexity of the legal issues involved, which were addressed in extensive briefing
17
before both at the District Court and Court of Appeals, as well as the extensiveness of both
18
discovery and settlement negotiations. The fees awarded in this settlement and the amount to be
19
awarded from the settlement with EA and CLC will represent an appropriate positive multiplier
20
based on the significant recovery Class Counsel have achieved for Settlement Class Members, as
21
well as the risks faced by Class Counsel, as explained above.
22
12.
In light of the above, the Court finds the requested fees reasonable and that an award
23
of $5,800,000 for this Settlement is appropriate under both the lodestar and common fund
24
approaches.
25
13.
The Court also awards reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses in the
26
amount of $224,443.20. The Court finds that these amounts were reasonably incurred in the
27
ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and
28
nationwide scope of the case, and that the total costs and expenses granted are allowable under the
4
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
Settlement.2
2
14.
The Court confirms its previous appointment of Gilardi & Co. LLC as the Notice
3
and Claims Administrator (“Administrator”) and finds that the Administrator has so far fulfilled its
4
duties under the Settlement.
5
15.
The Court orders that, by agreement between Class Counsel and the Administrator,
6
$133,436.27 be paid to the Administrator for past and future unreimbursed expenses relating to
7
notice and administration of the Settlement. This is in addition to the $185,476 already received by
8
the Administrator for the fulfillment of its duties.
9
16.
The Court confirms its previous findings in the Preliminary Approval Order that, for
10
settlement purposes only, the Lawsuits meet all the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
11
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
12
17.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court approves
13
the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement Agreement is, in
14
all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of, the Class Representatives,
15
the Settlement Class, and each of the Settlement Class Members, and is consistent and in
16
compliance with all requirements of due process and federal law. This Court further finds that the
17
Settlement is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the
18
interests of the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class Members, and the Settling Defendant.
19
The Court further finds that the Parties have evidenced full compliance with the Court’s
20
Preliminary Approval Order and other Orders relating to this Settlement. The Settlement shall be
21
consummated pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which the Parties are hereby
22
directed to perform.
23
18.
The Court finds that the Class Notice plan as performed by the Parties—including
24
25
26
27
28
2
The NCAA agreed not to object to an award of attorneys’ fees up to 29% of the Settlement
Fund, or to an award of expenses and costs up to $500,000, and on that basis does not object to
Class Counsel’s request for such awards. The NCAA, however, takes no position on the
reasonableness of Class Counsel’s request for fees and costs, or their asserted bases. The NCAA’s
lack of objection to Class Counsel’s filings or to the awards of fees and costs in this Order and
Final Judgment shall not be deemed to be an admission by the NCAA or the Released Parties of the
reasonableness of the requested or awarded fees and costs.
5
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
the form, content, and method of dissemination of the Class Notice to Settlement Class Members,
2
as well as the procedures followed for locating current addresses for potential Settlement Class
3
Members for notice purposes—(i) constituted the best practicable notice; (ii) was reasonably
4
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the
5
Lawsuits and of their right to object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement; (iii) was
6
reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive
7
notice; and (iv) met all applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due
8
process, and any other applicable rules or law.
9
19.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) requires that class notice “must clearly and concisely
10
state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class
11
certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an
12
appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the
13
class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and
14
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).”
15
20.
The Court finds that the notice program, previously approved by the Court in its
16
Preliminary Approval Order, has been implemented and complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
17
The Preliminary Approval Order outlined the form and manner by which the Settlement Class
18
Members would be provided with notice of the Settlement, the Fairness Hearing, and related
19
matters.
20
21.
The nationwide notice program was extensive and robust. Among other things, it
21
included individual mailed notice to members of the Settlement Class who could be identified
22
through reasonable efforts; a dedicated settlement website; publication of a summary notice in
23
leading sports publications; and the extensive use of Internet advertising to inform Settlement Class
24
Members of the proposed Settlement. In order to create a database for mailed notice, the
25
Administrator received 92,732 addresses of potential Settlement Class members via a website set
26
up for NCAA member institutions, as well as via email. Notice and claims forms were mailed to
27
over 90,000 potential Settlement Class Members. Summary notice was also published in Sports
28
Illustrated and ESPN the Magazine. Mail and publication notice was supplemented by Internet
6
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
advertising and promotion through various sources, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
2
Proof that mailing, publication, and advertising complied with the Preliminary Approval Order has
3
been filed with the Court. This notice program fully complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the
4
requirements of due process. It provided due and adequate notice to the Class; in fact, the “reach
5
rate” of the class notice was almost 95%. Furthermore, the large number of claim requests received
6
as of July 2, 2015—20,241, which is an approximate estimate subject to change and final
7
confirmation—provides further evidence of the sufficiency of notice.
8
22.
The Court has reviewed Exhibit E to the Declaration of Kenneth Jue, Dkt. No.
9
1223-5, and determines that Dkt. No. 1223-5 contains the complete list of all Persons who have
10
submitted timely and untimely requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Court rules
11
that all Persons who requested exclusion shall be excluded from the Settlement Class. Exhibit 1 to
12
this Order and Final Judgment is the complete list of all Persons who are excluded from the
13
Settlement Class, and who therefore shall neither share in nor be bound by this Order and Final
14
Judgment.
15
23.
The Court finds that the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
16
Plan of Allocation provides monetary recovery in some form, on a pro rata basis based on the
17
number of their Season Roster Appearance Points, to all Settlement Class Members who filed a
18
timely claim. See In re Oracle Secs. Litig., No. 90-0931-VRW, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21593, at
19
*3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 1994). The Court hereby adopts Class Counsel’s proposal to extend the
20
current Bar Date (July 2, 2015) such that claims will also be considered timely if they are either
21
(1) submitted online through the Settlement website by 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on July 31, 2015, or
22
(2) postmarked by 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on July 31, 2015. The Court also has reviewed the
23
procedures set forth in the Joint Filing of Claim Dispute Resolution Procedure, including Exhibits
24
A and B thereto (Dkt. No. 1241-3). The Court exercises its discretion to approve these procedures,
25
which make non-substantive changes to the Plan of Allocation with respect to the timing of the
26
claim dispute and payment disbursement processes outlined in Subparagraphs 62(e)-(h) of the
27
Settlement Agreement. The Court also notes that there is no reversion to the NCAA of the
28
Settlement Fund, maximizing the amount of payments to Settlement Class Members, as set forth in
7
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
Subparagraphs 62(a)-(i) of the Agreement. Accordingly, with the changes noted above, the Plan of
2
Allocation is approved.
3
24.
The Court has reviewed the objections of Darrin Duncan, Nathan Harris, and Tate
4
George to this Settlement and overrules them. The Court notes that despite an extensive and robust
5
nationwide class notice program, only three objections have been filed; the response to the
6
proposed Settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. The Court overrules the objections and
7
finds that they are without merit for the reasons set forth in Class Counsel’s filings, in open Court,
8
and for the additional reasons set out in this Order and Final Judgment. In brief, the Court rules as
9
follows:
10
a.
First, the objections regarding the requested Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Award
11
are without merit. The requested fees and expenses are fair and reasonable under
12
both the lodestar method and as a percentage of the common fund, and are awarded
13
as detailed in this Order and Final Judgment. The objection that Class Counsel is
14
seeking a double recovery for fees from both the EA Settlement and this Settlement
15
is incorrect: the requested fees are sought based on Class Counsel’s efforts to
16
secure both settlements.
17
b.
Second, the objection that the claims process was burdensome and that checks
18
should simply have been sent to Settlement Class Members’ last-known addresses
19
is likewise without merit. The Court finds that the claims process is reasonable and
20
appropriate given the challenges of locating all Settlement Class Members. The
21
Settlement claims process minimizes waste, fraud, and administrative costs and is
22
typical of class action cases like this one. The claims process, which this Court
23
previously approved, is simple, straightforward, and designed to make submitting a
24
claim as easy as possible—as demonstrated by the high claim rate: approximately
25
29% as of July 2, 2015. Moreover, simply sending checks (many quite large) to the
26
last-known addresses of Settlement Class Members, without confirmation from the
27
Settlement Class Member, would have been irresponsible.
28
c.
Third, the Court overrules objections regarding the size and scope of the relief
8
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
provided by the Settlement. The Court finds that the relief provided by the
2
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Settlement Class Members.
3
d.
Fourth, the objections regarding the scope of the release are without merit because
4
the objections do not accurately characterize the Released Claims. The Released
5
Claims are appropriately limited to claims relating to the NCAA-Branded
6
Videogames, as set forth in the Agreement.
7
e.
Fifth, the objections to the Class Representatives’ Incentive Awards are also
8
without merit, and are awarded as detailed in this Order and Final Judgment. The
9
requested Incentive Awards are fair and reasonable.
10
11
f.
25.
All other arguments of the objectors are overruled as without merit.
The Lawsuits and all individual and class claims contained therein, including all of
12
the Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice and on the merits as to the Class Representatives
13
and all other Settlement Class Members (other than those listed in Exhibit 1 hereto), and as against
14
each and all of the Released Parties, without fees or costs except as provided in the Settlement
15
Agreement, in this Order and Final Judgment. The Court also approves the striking and dismissal
16
with prejudice of the Keller Right of Publicity Claims in the Third Consolidated Amended
17
Complaint in the O’Bannon case, as set forth in the Agreement.
18
26.
As of the Effective Date, the Class Representatives and all other Settlement Class
19
Members (other than those listed in Exhibit 1 hereto), and their heirs, estates, trustees, executors,
20
administrators, principals, beneficiaries, representatives, agents, assigns, and successors, and
21
anyone claiming through them or acting or purporting to act for them or on their behalf, regardless
22
of whether they have received actual notice of the Settlement, have conclusively compromised,
23
settled, discharged, and released all Released Claims against the NCAA and the Released Parties,
24
and are bound by the provisions of the Settlement, as further provided by the Agreement, including
25
but not limited to Paragraphs 33-34 and 73-78 of the Agreement.
26
27.
This Order and Final Judgment shall be binding on, and have res judicata and
27
preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed by the
28
Released Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Class Representatives and all other Settlement
9
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
Class Members (other than those listed in Exhibit 1 hereto), and their heirs, estates, trustees,
2
executors, administrators, principals, beneficiaries, representatives, agents, assigns, and successors,
3
and anyone claiming through them or acting or purporting to act for them or on their behalf,
4
regardless of whether the Settlement Class Member previously initiated or subsequently initiates
5
individual litigation or other proceedings encompassed by the Released Claims, and even if such
6
Settlement Class Member never received actual notice of the Lawsuits or the Settlement.
7
28.
The Court permanently bars and enjoins the Class Representatives and all other
8
Settlement Class Members (other than those listed in Exhibit 1 hereto) from (i) filing, commencing,
9
prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in any other lawsuit or
10
administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on the
11
Released Claims and (ii) organizing Settlement Class Members into a separate group, class, or
12
subclass for purposes of pursuing as a purported class action any lawsuit or administrative,
13
regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to
14
include class allegations, or seeking class certification in a pending action) based on the Released
15
Claims.
16
29.
EA, CLC, and any other Party or Person who may assert a claim against any
17
Released Party or Releasee based upon, relating to, or arising out of the Released Claims, the
18
Lawsuits, any EA NCAA-Branded Videogame, or the Settlement are barred, enjoined, and
19
permanently restrained from instituting, commencing, pursuing, prosecuting, or asserting any claim
20
against the Released Parties for contribution, indemnity (with the exception of contractual
21
indemnity claims to the extent that any may exist), or otherwise denominated (including but not
22
limited to any other claim that arises out of, involves, or relates to any potential or actual liability
23
owed to the Keller Named Plaintiffs and/or the Settlement Class, and/or for related costs or fees in
24
connection with that asserted liability), as claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims
25
in any court, arbitration, administrative agency, or forum, or in any other manner, including but not
26
limited to a request for offset. All such claims are hereby extinguished, discharged, satisfied, and
27
unenforceable, and nothing in this Paragraph shall be deemed to imply that EA, CLC, or any Party
28
or Person has a right to contribution or indemnity against any of the Released Parties.
10
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
30.
The Settlement Agreement and the Settlement provided for therein, and any
2
proceedings taken pursuant thereto, are not, and should not in any event be offered, received, or
3
construed as evidence of, a presumption, concession, or an admission by any Party of liability or
4
non-liability or of the certifiability or non-certifiability of a litigation class, or of any
5
misrepresentation or omission in any statement or written document approved or made by any
6
Party; provided, however, that reference may be made to the Agreement and the Settlement
7
provided for therein in such proceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of the
8
Settlement Agreement, as further set forth in the Agreement.
9
31.
Without further approval from the Court, the Parties are authorized to agree to and
10
adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Settlement Agreement, including all
11
Exhibits thereto, as (i) shall be consistent in all material respects with this Order and Final
12
Judgment and (ii) do not limit the rights of Settlement Class Members.
13
32.
The Court orders that the certification of the Settlement Class and final approval of
14
the Settlement, and all actions associated with them, are undertaken on the condition that they shall
15
be vacated if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or disapproved in whole or in part by any
16
appellate court and/or other court of review, or if any of the Parties invokes the right to withdraw
17
from the Settlement as provided in Paragraphs 86-87 of the Settlement Agreement, or if the
18
Settlement does not become Final for any other reason, in which event the Settlement Agreement
19
and the fact that it was entered into shall not be offered, received, or construed as an admission or
20
as evidence for any purpose, including but not limited to an admission by any Party of liability or
21
non-liability or of any misrepresentation or omission in any statement or written document
22
approved or made by any Party, or of the certifiability of a litigation class, or otherwise be used by
23
any Person for any purpose whatsoever, in any trial of these Lawsuits or any other action or
24
proceedings, as further provided in the Settlement Agreement.
25
33.
The Court finds the Settlement is in good faith pursuant to federal law and
26
California Code of Civil Procedure 877.6, including that the amount to be paid in the Settlement is
27
in accord with the Class Representatives’ and the Settlement Class Members’ potential total
28
recovery and the NCAA’s potential liability; that the allocation of the Settlement is fair; that the
11
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
1
Settlement is not meant to be the equivalent of liability damages; that the Settlement considers the
2
relevant financial circumstances of the NCAA; and that the Settlement is not the product of and
3
does not evince collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of defendants
4
other than the NCAA.
5
6
7
34.
The Court finds that the CAFA Notices sent by the NCAA complied with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1715 and all other provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
35.
The Escrow Account established by Class Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel is approved
8
as a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 4688 and the Treasury
9
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
10
36.
The Court finds, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay in
11
entering final judgment, and directs that this Order and Final Judgment shall be final and entered
12
forthwith.
13
37.
Without affecting the finality of this Order and Final Judgment, the Court reserves
14
jurisdiction over the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class, and the NCAA as to all matters
15
concerning the administration, consummation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
Dated: August 18, 2015
_________________________________
Judge Claudia Wilken
Senior District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
EXHIBIT 1
1
2
Persons Excluded from Settlement Class
City
State
Michael K. Taylor
Anniston
AL
Michael Bolling
Miami
FL
Chaz L. Anderson
Inglewood
CA
Thomas P. Nardo
Lancaster
PA
David Jeremy Schatz
3
Name
Birmingham AL
Anthony Khalife
Plains
PA
Kristoff Williams
Antioch
CA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
09-cv-1967 CW
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?