Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC et al

Filing 161

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting 156 Motion for Settlement. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SANDRA LEE JACOBSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

v.
PERSOLVE, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 156

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS Plaintiff Sandra Lee Jacobson (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and the
members of the certified damages class (individually referred to as “Class Members”; collectively
referred to as the “Class”), and Defendants Persolve, LLC and Stride Card, LLC (“Defendants”)
have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to the Settlement Class and a hearing, to
settle the instant suit upon the terms set forth in the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement
(“Agreement”), ECF No. 148-3;
WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed and considered the Agreement entered into among
the parties, together with all exhibits thereto, the record in this case, and the briefs and arguments
of counsel;
WHEREAS, plaintiffs have applied for an order entering final judgment and granting final
1
Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

approval of class action settlement, ECF No. 156;

2

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

3

1.

JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant

4

suit, and this Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff, Defendants, and all of the Class

5

Members.

6

2.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVAL: The Court finds that the Agreement,

7

ECF No. 148-3, is the product of arm’s length negotiations between the parties. Moreover, the

8

Agreement was reached after extensive discovery and motions practice such that the parties are

9

aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. The Court notes that Defendants
contend that Persolve has a negative net worth and that Stride Card has a net worth of less than

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

$35,000. These contentions, if true, would limit Plaintiff’s potential recovery at trial. The Court

12

additionally notes that the parties dispute whether Stride Card is the type of entity that can be held

13

liable for Plaintiff’s statutory claims, an issue that would require the parties to incur additional

14

costs through motions for summary judgment or through trial. Thus, multiple uncertainties remain

15

in Plaintiff’s case and, without settlement, there is a high potential for additional costly litigation.

16

Under these circumstances, the Court finds the terms of the Agreement to be “fair, reasonable, and

17

adequate.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of the City & Cty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 625

18

(9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth factors for final approval). Accordingly, the Court finally approves

19

the Agreement, and incorporates its terms herein.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3.

THE CLASS: On June 4, 2015, the Court certified the following class pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
(i) all persons with addresses in California (ii) to whom PERSOLVE
sent, or caused to be sent, a notice in the form of Exhibit “1” on
behalf of STRIDE CARD (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged
debt originally owed to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (iv) which was
incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (v)
which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office
(vi) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action
through the date of class certification.
Based on Defendants’ records as of September 28, 2015, there are 469 persons in the Class.

27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

4.

NOTICE TO CLASS: The Class Notice was distributed to Class Members in

2

conformance with the approved Notice Plan. The Class Notice included notice of Class Counsel’s

3

motion for attorney’s fees and costs in time for objections to the motion to be filed, in accordance

4

with Rule 23(h)(2).

5

5.

OBJECTIONS: Class Members were provided with a full and fair opportunity to

6

object to the Agreement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. No Class Members

7

communicated an objection to the Agreement to Class Counsel, and no objecting Class Members

8

appeared at the Final Approval hearing held on December 1, 2016.

9

6.

EXCLUSIONS: Class Members were provided the opportunity to request exclusion

from the Class. Two Class Members, Sandra Vanduyne and Wilson Invencion, have opted out of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the Class and are not bound by the terms of the Agreement or this order.

12

7.

CLASS COMPENSATION:
a.

13

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court orders Defendants to pay $5,000 to
the Class, distributed pro rata to each participating Class Member.

14
b.

15

Any funds which remain unclaimed 90 days after the pro rata settlement

16

payments are disbursed to the Class shall be paid to the Pro Bono Project

17

Silicon Valley as a cy pres fund for consumer education and representation.

18

8.

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE: On June 4, 2015, the Court held that Plaintiff,

19

Sandra Lee Jacobson, adequately represented the interests of the Class and appointed her as the

20

Class Representative.

21

9.

STATUTORY AWARD TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVE: The Court orders

22

Defendants to pay $1,500 as a statutory award to the Class Representative as provided in the

23

Agreement.

24

10.

INCENTIVE AWARD TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVE: The request for an

25

incentive award of $1,500 for the Class Representative is reasonable given the time she spent in

26

conjunction with prosecuting this case and the presumptively reasonable incentive award in this

27

district of $5,000. Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21,

28

3
Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

2012) (“[I]n this district, a $5,000 incentive award is presumptively reasonable.”). Accordingly,

2

the Court orders Defendants to pay the Class Representative a $1,500 incentive award as provided

3

in the Agreement.

4

11.

CLASS COUNSEL: On June 4, 2015, the Court held that Fred W. Schwinn and

5

Raeon Roulston of Consumer Law Center, Inc., and O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz, &

6

Associates, Ltd., were adequate to act as counsel for the Class and appointed them as Class

7

Counsel.

8
9

12.

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR: In the order granting preliminary approval,

the Court approved ILYM Group Inc. (“ILYM”), to act as the Settlement Administrator and carry
out the responsibilities assigned to it under the Agreement. The Court orders Defendants,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pursuant to the Agreement, to pay ILYM $11,000 in fees and costs for its service as Settlement

12

Administrator.

13

13.

RETAINED JURISDICTION: Without affecting the finality of this Order or final

14

judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over: (1) implementation and enforcement of

15

the Agreement pursuant to further orders of the Court until the final judgment contemplated

16

hereby has become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto

17

shall have been performed pursuant to the Agreement; (2) any other action necessary to conclude

18

this settlement and to implement the Agreement; and (3) the enforcement, construction, and

19

interpretation of the Agreement.

20

14.

NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY: As specified in the Agreement, Defendants

21

dispute Plaintiff’s claims and make no admission of liability.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: December 14, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28

4
Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT