Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 143

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting 137 Motion for Final Approval and Awarding Costs 139 . (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)

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

MEENA ARTHUR DATTA,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC,

16

Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING
COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 137, 139

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff Meena Arthur Datta (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Asset

18
19

Recovery Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”).1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final

20

Approval of Class Action Settlement, ECF No. 137, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and

21

Costs, ECF No. 139.
WHEREAS, a class action is pending before the Court in Datta v. Asset Recovery

22
23

Solutions, LLC, No. 15-CV-00188-LHK;

24

WHEREAS, the Court has received and reviewed the Class Action Settlement Agreement

25

and Release entered into between Meena Arthur Data as class representative and Asset Recovery

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and Oliphant
Financial, LLC. Oliphant Financial, LLC was dismissed from this action pursuant to a stipulation
of dismissal on March 9, 2015. ECF No. 22.
1
Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS

1

Solutions, LLC, dated on or about November 16, 2016 (the “Settlement Agreement”), and has

2

considered the terms of the proposed settlement set forth therein;
WHEREAS, all terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the

3
4

Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein;
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2016, this Court certified the following Settlement Class

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): (i) all persons with addresses in California, (ii) to whom
Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a collection letter in the form of Exhibit “1” in an envelope in
the form of Exhibit “2,” (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to HSBC
Bank Nevada, 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. ECF
No. 66.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s ruling certifying the class: (A) the class as defined is
sufficiently numerous such that joinder is impracticable; (B) common questions of law and fact
predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, and include whether or
not Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

16

(“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civil Code

17
§ 1788.17 as alleged in the Complaint, (C) the claims of the named plaintiff are typical of the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Class Members’ claims; (D) the named plaintiff is appropriate and adequate representatives of the
Class and her attorneys are qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiff and the Class (E) a class
action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class
Members
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, this Court entered an order preliminarily approving the
Settlement Agreement, approving the form and method of notice with amendments, and setting a
date and time for a Final Approval Hearing to consider whether the Settlement should be finally

25

approved by the Court as being fair, adequate, and reasonable, ECF No. 133 (“Preliminary

26

Approval Order”);

27
28

WHEREAS, the Preliminary Approval Order further directed that all Class members be
2
Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS

1

given notice of the Settlement Agreement and of the date for the Final Approval Hearing;
WHEREAS, the Court has received the declaration of the Claims Administrator attesting

2
3

to the mailing of the Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, ECF No. 140;
WHEREAS, no objections have been made to the Settlement; and

4

WHEREAS, the Court having conducted a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2016, and

5
6

having considered the arguments presented, all papers filed and all proceedings had therein;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

7

1.

8

That all defined terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth

in the Settlement Agreement;
9
2.
10

and Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, all Class members,

3.

In accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

requirements of due process, all Class members have been given proper and adequate notice of the
Settlement. Based upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the Settlement Agreement, the

14

arguments of counsel, and all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, the Court finds that

15

the notice implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Preliminary

16

Approval Order: (a) constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (b) constituted

17

notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class members of the

18

pendency of the litigation, their right to object to the Settlement, and their right to appear at the

19

Final Approval Hearing; (c) were reasonable and constituted sufficient notice to all persons

20

entitled to notice; and (d) met all applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure and any other applicable law.
4.

22
23
24
25
26

The Settlement Agreement in this action warrants final approval pursuant to Rule

23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to those it
affects and resulted from contested litigation, substantial discovery, motion practice, and arm’s
length negotiations between the parties, and is in the public interest considering the following
factors:
(a) the strength of Plaintiffs’ case;

27
28

3
Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS

1

(b) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;

2

(c) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;

3

(d) the amount offered in settlement;

4

(e) the extent of discovery completed;
(f) the experience and views of counsel; and

5

(g) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. See Hanlon v.

6

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

7
8

5.

The Final Approval Motion is hereby GRANTED, and the Settlement Agreement is

hereby APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class members. The Parties are
9
directed to fulfill the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

6.

By the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant is to cause the

amount of $5,000 (the Settlement Fund) to be paid to the Settlement Administrator to be
distributed to the cy pres designee on behalf of the class, the Pro Bono Project of Silicon Valley.
7.

The Court APPROVES payment of $1,000 to named Plaintiff Meena Arthur Datta

for her individual claims.
8.

The Court APPROVES payment of costs in the amount of $17,000.00, which the

16

Court finds to be fair and reasonable, to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the

17

Settlement Agreement.

18
19
20

9.

Except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement or herein, the parties are

to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs;
10.

In consideration of the benefits contained in the Settlement Agreement, each of the

21

Class members who have not validly excluded himself/herself from this Settlement have fully,

22

finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all claims against Defendants in

23
24
25
26

accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and as the released claims are defined in
the Settlement.
11.

Without affecting the finality of the Court’s judgment in any way, this Court retains

jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the Settlement Agreement and its terms; (b) distribution of
the cy pres award; and (c) all other proceedings related to the implementation, interpretation,

27
28

4
Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS

1

administration, consummation, and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the

2

administration of claims by Class members.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: April 27, 2017

5
6
7

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9
10

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

5
Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS