Huynh v. Sanchez et al

Filing 149

Order by Judge Lucy Koh Granting 139 Motion for Preliminary Approval; Denying as Moot 113 Administrative Motion; Denying as Moot 118 Motion in Limine; Denying as Moot 119 Motion in Limine; Denying as Moot 120 Motion in Limine; Denying as Moot 121 Motion in Limine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redline Copy of Amended Notice, # 2 Exhibit Redline Copy of Objection Form, # 3 Exhibit Clean Copy of Amended Notice, # 4 Exhibit Clean Copy of Objection Form)(lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2016)

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

THANH HUYNH, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15

KATHERINE HARASZ, et al.,

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 118, 119, 120, 121 & 139

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiffs1 bring this action against the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara

18
19

(“HACSC”) and Katherine Harasz, in her official capacity as HACSC’s Executive Director

20

(collectively, “Defendants”). Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of

21

class action settlement. ECF No. 139 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval

22

included copies of the Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice. ECF No. 141-1 (“Settlement

23

Agreement”); ECF No. 141-2 (“Notice”).
After reviewing the motion for preliminary approval, the Settlement Agreement, and the

24
25
26
27
28

1

The named Plaintiffs are Thanh Huynh, Venus Benabides, Rudy Garcia, Lynda Gomes, Nicholas
Wallace, Lillie Ware, Stephen Jones, Dehab Haile, and Freihiwet Tesfamariam.
1
Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

1

proposed Notice, the Court issued an order on September 1, 2016 with questions about the

2

Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice. ECF No. 146. The parties filed their responses on

3

September 8, 2016. ECF Nos. 146 & 147. The Court held a hearing on the motion for

4

preliminary approval of class action settlement on September 15, 2016. During the Preliminary

5

Approval Hearing, the Court proposed a number of suggested changes to the proposed Notice, to

6

which the parties agreed. Accordingly, these changes have been incorporated into the Amended

7

Notice accompanying this Order. ECF No. 149-1 (red-lined copy of Amended Notice); ECF No.

8

149-2 (red-lined copy of Objection Form); ECF No. 149-3 (clean copy of Amended Notice); ECF

9

No. 149-4 (clean copy of Objection Form)

10

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, the record in this case, the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties’ responses to the Court’s September 1, 2016 questions, and the statements at the September

12

15, 2016 hearing,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

14

1.

15
16

All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the

Settlement Agreement executed by the parties and filed with the Court.
2.

“Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is

17

appropriate if ‘the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-

18

collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential

19

treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible

20

approval.’” Willner v. Manpower Inc., 2015 WL 54349, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2015) (quoting In re

21

Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).

22

3.

The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is within the range of

23

fairness and reasonableness. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement represents a

24

comprehensive settlement of the issues in the instant case, that the Settlement Agreement achieves

25
26
27
28

a fair and equitable result, and that the Settlement Agreement will result in significant long-term
benefits to Class Members. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
is therefore GRANTED, contingent upon the parties sending out the Amended Notice. See ECF
2
Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

1

No. 149-1 (red-lined copy of Amended Notice); ECF No. 149-2 (red-lined copy of Objection

2

Form); ECF No. 149-3 (clean copy of Amended Notice); ECF No. 149-4 (clean copy of Objection

3

Form).

4
5
6
7
8
9

4.

Because the Court has granted the motion for preliminary approval, all other

pending motions on the docket are DENIED AS MOOT. ECF Nos. 113, 118, 119, 120 & 121.
5.

The Court finds that the Amended Notice satisfies the requirements of due process

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
6.

The Court approves the Amended Notice and directs that the Amended Notice be

delivered in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
7.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

such objection to:
LHK Courtroom Deputy
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
280 S 1st St
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Huynh v. Harasz

12
13
14
15

Any Class Member who desires to object to the Settlement Agreement shall mail

8.

All objections must be signed and must (1) state whether the objector or counsel on

16

behalf of the objector intends to attend the Final Approval Hearing, (2) declare that the objector is

17

a Class Member, and (3) describe the reasons for the objection.

18

9.

The Court shall hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

19

10.

Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs shall file their motion in support of

20

final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and Class Counsel shall file their motion for

21

attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards to the Class Representatives. The motion for attorney’s

22

fees, costs, and service awards must include (1) the number of hours spent on this litigation by

23

each biller, (2) detailed billing records showing how much time was spent on each task, and (3)

24

each biller’s billable rate and justification for such rate. For each biller who worked on this action,

25

Class Counsel must specify whether any court within the Northern District of California has

26

approved the biller’s billable rate.

27
28

11.

The parties are to notify the Court as soon as the U.S. Department of Housing and
3

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

1

Urban Development (“HUD”) approves the Settlement Agreement. If HUD approves the

2

Settlement Agreement, the parties shall promptly file with the Court a schedule which includes

3

proposed dates for: (1) when the Notice shall be disseminated; (2) when the parties shall file an

4

affidavit stating that the Notice has been disseminated; (3) when the motion for attorney’s fees,

5

costs, and service awards and the motion for final approval of class action settlement shall be

6

filed; (4) the deadline to mail objections; and (5) when the replies in support of the motion for

7

attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards and the motion for final approval of class action

8

settlement shall be filed. The motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards should be filed

9

at least two weeks before the deadline to mail objections.
12.

All parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

13.

Jurisdiction by this Court is retained over this litigation and the parties to this

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

litigation, and each of the Class Members for all matters relating to this litigation, the Settlement
Agreement, including (without limitation) all matters relating to the administration, interpretation,
effectuation, and/or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 15, 2016.
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS