Cox et al v. Ametek, Inc. et al

Filing 151

Final Judgment and Order Granting: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 129 ; Motion for Attorneys' Fees, costs, and Incentive Awards 128 ; and Joint Motion for Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge 148 . Plaintiffs' claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice, without any award of attorneys' fees or costs except as provided in this Order. The Court will address the pending third-party claims by separate order. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 12/15/20. (dlg)

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2903 Page 1 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ADAM COX, individually, by and
through his durable power of attorney,
VICTOR COX, and on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated;
MARIA OVERTON, individually, and
on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated; JORDAN YATES,
individually, and on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated;

16

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
GRANTING:
1) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT, [Dkt. 129];
2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE
AWARDS [Dkt. 128]; and

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

18

AMETEK, INC., a Delaware
corporation; THOMAS DEENEY,
individually; SENIOR OPERATIONS
LLC, a limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

19
20
21
22

3) JOINT MOTION FOR CONSENT
TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION BY
A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE [Dkt. 148]

Defendants.

23

Plaintiffs Maria Overton owns and lives in a mobile home unit at Greenfield

24

Mobile Estates in El Cajon, California. Plaintiff Jordan Yates (together with Overton,

25

the “Class Representatives”) is a former resident of a mobile home unit in the

26

nearby Villa Cajon Mobile Home Estate. Those two mobile home parks and

27

Starlight Mobile Home Park (collectively, the “Mobile Home Parks”) are adjacent to

28

a manufacturing facility formerly owned by Ametek, Inc. and later owned by Senior
1
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2904 Page 2 of 24

1

Operations, LLC. Overton, Yates, and Adam Cox (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an

2

Amended Complaint in this action against Ametek, former Ametek officer Thomas

3

Deeney, and Senior Operations. 1 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants contaminated

4

the groundwater with waste chemicals and then failed to remediate the resulting

5

plume of polluted water, exposing units and residents in the Mobile Home Parks to

6

unsafe indoor air concentrations of trichloroethylene (“TCE”). The Amended

7

Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, and public

8

nuisance on behalf of a putative class of current owners and current and former

9

residents of units in the Mobile Home Parks.

10

The Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement that, following one

11

amendment and one modification, would resolve the action and settle the putative

12

class’s claims if the Court certifies the class and approves the Settlement. On

13

April 14, 2020, the Court entered its Preliminary Approval Order approving the

14

Settlement, certifying the Class, appointing Class representatives and Class

15

Counsel, and scheduling a final approval hearing. Dkt. 127. The Court conducted

16

two hearings to determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in

17

the best interests of the Class, and free from collusion, such that the Court should

18

grant Final Approval of the Settlement, and to consider Plaintiffs’ motion for an

19

award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses, and incentives for the Class

20

Representatives (“Fairness Hearing”).

21

The Court has considered:
• Plaintiffs’ briefing in support of the Motion for an Order Granting Final

22
23

Approval of the Class Action Settlement (the “Final Approval Motion”);
• Plaintiffs’ briefing in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs,

24
25

and Incentive Awards (the “Fee Motion”);

26
27
1

28

The initial Complaint was filed by Cox only. Cox died during the pendency of this
action. Counsel doesn’t ask to appoint Cox as a class representative.
2
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2905 Page 3 of 24

1

• Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Briefing in support of the Final Approval Motion;

2

• The declarations and exhibits submitted in support of each Motion and

3

the Settlement;

4

• The Settlement Agreement;

5

• The First Amended Settlement Agreement;

6

• The First Modification to the First Amended Settlement Agreement

7

(together with the First Amended Settlement Agreement, the “Amended

8

Settlement Agreement”);

9

• The entire record in this proceeding, including but not limited to the

10

briefing, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support of preliminary

11

approval of the Settlement in its various iterations, including;

12

o The Notice Plan for providing full and fair notice to the Class;

13

o The lack of any Class Member objections to or requests for

14

exclusion from the Settlement;

15

o The absence of any objection or response by any official after the

16

provision of all notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act

17

of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715; and

18

o Counsel’s oral presentations at the two hearings on the
Settlement’s fairness;

19
20
21
22

• This Court’s experiences, observations, and file developed in presiding
over resolution of this matter; and
• The relevant law.

23

Based upon these considerations and the Court’s findings of fact and

24

conclusions of law as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and below, IT IS

25

ORDERED:

26

1) Final Approval of the Settlement is GRANTED;

27

2) The Settlement Class is CERTIFIED;

28
3
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2906 Page 4 of 24

1

3) Maria Overton and Jordan Yates are appointed as Class Representatives

2

and the incentive awards requested in the Fee Motion are APPROVED;

3

4) Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. is appointed as Claims

4

Administrator and the payments to the Claims Administrator requested in

5

the Fee Motion are APPROVED;

6

5) The Law Offices of Baron & Budd are appointed as Class Counsel and the

7

attorneys’ fees requested in the Fee Motion are APPROVED;

8

6) The Joint Motion for Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States

9

Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 148, is GRANTED; and

10

7) Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with

11

the terms of this Order.

12
13

DISCUSSION
I.

14

Incorporation of Documents
This Final Approval Order incorporates the Amended Settlement Agreement,

15

including each of its exhibits.

16

II.

17

Definitions
Any capitalized terms used but not defined in this Order shall have the

18

meanings given to them in the Amended Settlement Agreement.

19

III. Jurisdiction

20

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, including jurisdiction

21

over all claims alleged in the action, settlement of those claims on a class-wide

22

basis, and all claims released by the Settlement, and any objections submitted to

23

the Settlement.

24

The Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Parties. As discussed in

25

greater detail below and in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Class

26

Members received adequate notice, had the right to opt out, and were adequately

27

represented by Yates and Overton. Accordingly, the Court can and does exercise

28

jurisdiction over those Class Members’ claims. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
4
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2907 Page 5 of 24

1

Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811-12 (1986) (adequate notice and opportunity to be heard

2

permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims of absent class members).

3

IV. Findings and Conclusions

4

A.

5

The Court adopts the Preliminary Approval Order’s definition of the “Class,”

6

Definition of Class and Class Members

comprised of the “Class Members,” and reproduces the class definition below:

7

Medical Consultation Program Subclass:

8

Every person who resided in the following mobile home parks for

9

one or more calendar year between January 1, 1963, and April

10

13, 2020: 1) Greenfield Mobile Estates, 400 Greenfield Drive, El

11

Cajon, California 92021; 2) Starlight Mobile Home Park 351

12

E. Bradley Avenue, El Cajon, California 92021; 3) Villa Cajon

13

Mobile Home Estates, 255 E. Bradley Ave., El Cajon, California

14

92021.

15
16

Mobile Home Coach Mitigation System Subclass:

17

Every person who as of April 13, 2020, owns the mobile home

18

coach at the following locations: 1) Greenfield Mobile Estates,

19

400 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California 92021; Starlight Mobile

20

Home Park, 351 E. Bradley Avenue, El Cajon, California 92021;

21

Villa Cajon Mobile Home Estates, 255 E. Bradley Ave., El Cajon,

22

California 92021.

23

B.

24

The Court grants final certification of the Class. All Class Members are subject

25
26

Class Certification

to this Order and the Final Judgment.
1.

Numerosity

27

The proposed Settlement consists of potentially thousands of claimants,

28

which can reasonably be inferred from the number of mobile home coaches within
5
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2908 Page 6 of 24

1

the three Mobile Home Parks, the average household size, the average length of

2

residence in a mobile home coach, and the nearly six-decade class period. For the

3

purposes of this Settlement, no party or objector contests numerosity. The Court

4

finds that the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all class claims is

5

impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).

6

2.

Commonality

7

There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including whether

8

Defendants caused TCE contamination in groundwater, whether the TCE

9

contamination made its way to indoor air within the downgradient homes, and

10

whether and to what extent Class Members were exposed to the indoor air TCE

11

contamination. All Class Members allegedly suffered the same injury: exposure to

12

indoor air TCE contamination resulting in increased risk of disease or illness. All

13

Class Members were exposed to the same or substantially similar indoor air

14

contamination, and all allegedly suffered increased risk of disease or illness from

15

that exposure. Resolution of the common questions about Defendants’ conduct and

16

its effects on Class Members’ health would resolve all the claims in one stroke. The

17

Court affirms its prior determination that the Class satisfies the commonality

18

requirement.

19

3.

Typicality

20

The Class Representatives’ claims are reasonably co-extensive with those of

21

the other Class Members and meet Rule 23(a)(3)’s requirements. Typicality is a

22

“permissive” standard under which “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are

23

reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be

24

substantially identical.”

25

(9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,

26

564 U.S. 338 (2011). Overton and Yates each resided in one of the Mobile Home

27

Parks at issue for at least a year during the Class period and alleges that he or she

28

has suffered increased risk from the same or substantially similar indoor air

Hanlon v. v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020

6
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2909 Page 7 of 24

1

contamination as the other members of the Medical Consultation Program

2

Subclass. Overton also owns a unit in one of the Mobile Home Parks and alleges

3

that she has suffered the same or substantially similar contamination of her property

4

as other members of the Mobile Home Coach Mitigation Subclass. The Class

5

Representatives do not allege that their increased risk has matured into illness

6

traceable to the contamination, and the Settlement does not release any such

7

claims for illness or death. 2 No Party or Class Member contests typicality for the

8

purposes of the Settlement. The Court finds that the Class Representatives’ claims

9

are reasonably co-extensive with those of the other Class and Subclass Members.

10

4.

Adequacy of Class Representatives

11

Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court finds that

12

the Class Representatives and Class Counsel are adequate to represent the Class.

13

For the purposes of this Settlement, no Party or objector contends that the Class

14

lacks adequate representation. Class Counsel has fully and competently

15

prosecuted all causes of action, claims, theories of liability, and remedies

16

reasonably available to the Class Members. The Court affirms its appointment of

17

the Law Offices of Baron & Budd as Class Counsel. The Court also affirms its

18

appointment of Maria Overton and Jordan Yates as Class Representatives, finding

19

that they possess no interests adverse to the Class and are adequate to represent

20

the Class.

21

5.

The Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

22

For the purposes of this Settlement, the Parties contend that the elements of

23

Rules 23(b)(3) have been met. The Court finds that questions of law or fact common

24
25
26
27
28

2

Cox died of cancer during while this action was pending. The Court did not
preliminarily approve Cox as a Class representative nor does it so appoint him by
this Order. Class Counsel, who represents Cox in both this action and in his related
individual action, affirmed that Cox does not allege here that his cancer resulted
from the contamination at issue. Dkt. 136 at 16:3-20. Moreover, the claims released
by the Settlement are limited to claims for the typical injury of increased risk.
7
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2910 Page 8 of 24

1

to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual

2

members and that class treatment is the superior means to adjudicate Plaintiffs’

3

claims. Plaintiffs allege a common injury on behalf of the Class, specifically that

4

Defendants’ acts or omissions created a condition of contamination that resulted in

5

Class Members’ general exposure to indoor air concentrations of TCE and an

6

increased risk of the onset of disease or illness. The Court also finds that resolution

7

on a class-wide basis is superior for purposes of judicial efficiency and to provide a

8

forum for absent Class Members, who are unlikely to bring individual suits to seek

9

the relief provided here. The Court affirms its prior ruling that the Class satisfies

10

Rule 23(b)(3).

11

V. The Settlement

12

“Because of the unique due process concerns relating to absent class

13

members and the inherent risk of collusion between class counsel and defense

14

counsel, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires district courts to review

15

proposed class action settlements for fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy.”

16

Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management, LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019).

17

Where the settlement comes prior to class certification, “settlement approval

18

requires a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally

19

be required under Rule 23(e).” Id. at 1048-49 (internal marks and citation omitted).

20

The Court must look particularly for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of

21

interest to protect absent class members. Id.

22

Applying this standard, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,

23

and adequate to the Class, in light of the complexity, expense, and likely duration

24

of the litigation (including appellate proceedings), as well as the risks involved in

25

establishing liability, damages, and the appropriateness of class treatment through

26

trial and appeal. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963

27

(9th Cir. 2009). The Settlement appears to be the result of arm’s-length negotiation

28

and the record doesn’t support a conclusion that the Settlement is the result of
8
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2911 Page 9 of 24

1

either collusion among Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and Defendants or conflicts of

2

interest between Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and the Class

3

Members, on the other.

4

A.

5

The Parties reached the proposed Settlement only after proceeding with

6

voluntary investigation and discovery in this action and following protracted

7

negotiations with oversight from Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler and the

8

undersigned District Judge. Following resolution in principle, the Parties engaged

9

in extensive negotiations related to the specific terms of the original Settlement

10

Agreement, the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Motion,

11

and the notices to Class Members (the “Settlement Notices”) in order to reach final

12

agreement on the specific terms of the proposed Settlement.

Generally

13

Plaintiffs and Class Counsel maintain that this action and the claims asserted

14

in it are meritorious and that Plaintiffs and the Class might have prevailed at trial.

15

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have agreed to settle the action

16

pursuant to the provisions of the Settlement, after considering, among other things:

17

(1) the benefits to Plaintiffs and the Class under the terms of the Settlement; (2) the

18

uncertainty of prevailing at trial; (3) the uncertainty of maintaining a class through

19

or after trial; (4) the attendant risks, difficulties, and delays inherent in litigation,

20

appeals and post-trial motions, especially in complex actions such as this; and

21

(5) the desirability of consummating this Settlement promptly in order to provide

22

substantive relief to Plaintiffs and the Class without unnecessary delay and

23

expense.

24

Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and

25

adequate because it provides substantial benefits to the Class, is in the best

26

interests of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged in this action. The Court

27

has received no objections to the Settlement.

28

///
9
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2912 Page 10 of 24

1

Defendants expressly deny any wrongdoing alleged in the pleadings in the

2

action and do not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or

3

liability in connection with any facts or claims which have been or could have been

4

alleged against it in the action. Defendants nonetheless want to settle the action

5

because the proposed Settlement will: (1) avoid further expense and disruption of

6

the management and operation of Defendants’ businesses due to the pendency

7

and defense of the action; (2) finally put Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ claims and the

8

underlying matters to rest; and (3) avoid the substantial expense, burdens, and

9

uncertainties associated with a potential finding of liability and damages on the

10

claims alleged in the Complaint.

11

The Parties engaged in thorough formal and informal discovery addressing,

12

among other things, claims and defenses on the issues of: (1) Defendants’

13

responsibility for the contamination at the former Ametek facility; (2) whether the

14

contamination at the facility resulted in contamination of groundwater; (3) the

15

natural fate and transport of contaminated groundwater and whether it resulted in

16

contamination underneath the Mobile Home Parks; (4) whether the contamination

17

of the groundwater at the Mobile Home Parks resulted in TCE being present in soil

18

vapor under the residences at the Mobile Home Parks; (4) whether the TCE in the

19

soil vapor under the Mobile Home Parks eventually made its way into indoor air in

20

the mobile home coaches owned and/or occupied by Plaintiffs and Class Members;

21

(5) whether and to what extent the Class Members who lived in the mobile home

22

coaches were exposed to TCE in indoor air; (6) whether the level of exposure

23

presented a significant health risk to Class Members; (7) whether Class Members

24

suffered an actual increased risk of the onset of specific diseases associated with

25

TCE exposure at the levels purportedly observed and modeled within the mobile

26

home coaches; and (8) whether early clinical detection through medical

27

consultation was reasonable and appropriate. As a result of this investigation, the

28

///
10
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2913 Page 11 of 24

1

Parties were well-versed in the merits of their claims and defenses, the risks of

2

continued litigation, and the likelihood of success at trial.

3

Thorough discovery and representation by attorneys with extensive

4

experience in toxic tort and complex class action litigation informed Plaintiffs and

5

Defendants of the legal bases for the claims and defenses in this litigation and

6

enabled them to balance the benefits of the Settlement relative to further litigation.

7

B.

8

The Settlement Affords Meaningful Relief in Exchange for the
Release of Class Members’ Claims

9

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides relief that is meaningful and

10

commensurate to the claims released by that Agreement. Through the Settlement,

11

Class Members release claims arising from this action, including claims for

12

attorneys’ fees and expenses, costs or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel,

13

and claims that were or could have been set forth as part of the action based on

14

the facts alleged. It includes a waiver of all rights under Section 1542 of the

15

California Civil Code, except to the extent otherwise specified in the Amended

16

Settlement Agreement. However, Class Members do not release personal injury

17

and wrongful death claims arising out of illness traceable to the plume, any claims

18

arising from the mitigation systems installed pursuant to the Settlement, and any

19

claims arising from Defendants’ future actions taken to mitigate or remediate the

20

plume (whether at a regulator’s insistence or of Defendants’ own accord).

21

In exchange for this release, Defendants confer a benefit of $3.5 million on

22

the roughly 7,000-person class, in the form of medical consultations and

23

remediation and mitigation of the plume. Of that amount, $1.5 million will be paid

24

into a Medical Consultation Fund. Each member of the Medical Consultation

25

Subclass is entitled to one (1) medical consultation with a doctor selected by Class

26

Counsel to receive any or all of the following procedures, according to the advice

27

of a physician selected at the Subclass Member’s discretion:

28

///
11
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2914 Page 12 of 24

1

• history and physical examination by board-certified physician;

2

• blood chemistry, blood count and microscopy urinalysis;

3

• kidney CT scan (in a follow-up appointment, if deemed necessary); and

4

• liver ultrasound or MRI (in a follow-up appointment, if deemed necessary).

5

These procedures are intended to screen for medical conditions including

6

those potentially associated with exposure to high concentrations of TCE, including

7

kidney cancer, liver cancer, and hematolymphatic cancer. All Medical Subclass

8

Members who submit a claim within two years of this Order will be entitled to these

9

services, which will be billed directly to the Claims Administrator and paid in full out

10

of the Medical Consultation fund until four years and six months after the date of

11

this Order or that fund is exhausted. Any amounts remaining in the Medical

12

Consultation

13

Remediation/Mitigation Fund described below.

fund

after

four

years

and

six

months

pass

into

the

14

Ametek will also pay $1 million into a fund (the “Remediation/Mitigation

15

Fund”) dedicated to monitoring, remediation, and mitigation activities related to the

16

plume, including sampling and mitigation in the homes of members of the

17

Sampling/Mitigation Program Subclass. Those Subclass Members are each

18

entitled to receive two indoor air samples per year for two years, to be conducted

19

in a manner consistent with and according to sampling protocols approved by the

20

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). The results of that

21

sampling and any necessary confirmation sampling will be shared with DTSC (or

22

other appropriate regulatory or governmental agency) for review and to assess

23

both: 1) whether further sampling is needed; and 2) whether the installation of

24

mitigation measures is appropriate and warranted. Where the regulator determines

25

that installation of mitigation measures is necessary and appropriate, the affected

26

Subclass Member will be entitled to installation of a mitigation system consisting of

27

passive venting of the crawlspace beneath their mobile home coach.

28

Sampling/Mitigation Program Subclass benefits claimed within a year of this Order
12
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2915 Page 13 of 24

1

will be billed directly to the Claims Administrator and paid in full out of the

2

Remediation/Mitigation fund until twenty years after the date of this Order or that

3

fund is exhausted.

4

Beyond

the

sampling

and

mitigation

described

above,

the

5

Remediation/Mitigation fund is available only for monitoring, remediation, and

6

mitigation activities related to the plume originating from the Former Ametek

7

Facility, in accordance with and pursuant to directed or agreed response actions

8

from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substance

9

Control, and/or any other regulatory or governmental agency responsible for

10

oversight of the plume. Any amounts remaining in the Remediation/Mitigation fund

11

after 20 years will be paid to the Cajon Valley Union School District.

12

In total, the benefit to the class, including both the Remediation/Mitigation

13

Fund and the Medical Consultation Fund, but subtracting the fees, costs, and

14

incentives the Court awards by this Order, comes to around $300 per member of

15

the roughly 7,000-member class. The Court has considered the realistic range of

16

outcomes in this matter, including the amount Plaintiffs might receive if they

17

prevailed at trial, the risk that Plaintiffs’ recovery at trial could be less than the

18

amount of the Settlement or nothing at all, the strength and weaknesses of the

19

case, the novelty and number of the complex legal issues involved, and the scope

20

of the claims that Class Members release by the Settlement. The magnitude of the

21

alleged harm in this case, in particular, supports a finding that the Settlement

22

provides a meaningful and reasonable benefit to the Class. Plaintiffs allege that the

23

highest-measured level of TCE contamination on another property adjacent to the

24

manufacturing facility was associated with an additional lifetime cancer risk of 42 in

25

a million, or 0.0042%. Am. Compl., Dkt. 5, ¶¶ 67-79. Any damages that might be

26

recovered at trial for a harm in that range would doubtfully exceed the benefit

27

provided by the Settlement by much, if at all.

28

///
13
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2916 Page 14 of 24

1

The Court has also considered the risk that, in the absence of Settlement

2

funds set aside for abatement, Defendants may not devote funds to that purpose.

3

See, e.g., id., ¶ 44 (alleging Defendants’ resistance to remediation and citing

4

Administrative Liability Complaint alleging Ametek’s failure to comply with prior

5

abatement order); Dkt. 143 at 12:6-14:15 (discussing Class Counsel’s view of

6

benefits of remediation to Class Members). Finally, the Court has reviewed and

7

considered the agreements made in connection with the Settlement and disclosed

8

to the Court pursuant to Rules 23(e)(3) and (e)(2)(c)(iv), finding nothing in those

9

agreements to suggest that the Settlement doesn’t provide adequate relief.

10
11

The relief offered by the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view
of each of these considerations.

12

C.

13

The Court hasn’t found evidence to support a conclusion that Plaintiffs and

14

Defendants colluded. Up to and through the Settlement, both Parties vigorously

15

litigated and negotiated this action, as evidenced by the docket in this action and

16

the Court’s understanding of the proceedings in the related actions.

No Collusion or Conflicts of Interest

17

However, the Amended Settlement Agreement’s “clear sailing” provision,

18

under which Defendants agreed not to contest any request for fees exceeding 25%

19

of the Settlement funds, is a “subtle sign of collusion.” SFBSC Management,

20

944 F.3d at 1049. The presence of such a provision requires the Court to look

21

closely at the reasonableness of the recovery and the reasonableness of fees to

22

confirm that Class Counsel haven’t negotiated a benefit for themselves using the

23

Class’s claims as leverage. Id.

24

That scrutiny doesn’t reveal evidence that Class Counsel bargained away a

25

Class benefit in exchange for clear sailing on an unreasonably large fee award. The

26

Settlement’s benefit to the Class is appropriate in relation to the likelihood of

27

success at trial and the magnitude of the Class claims. The alleged harm to Class

28

Members, in the form of marginally increased risk of illness or disease, renders the
14
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2917 Page 15 of 24

1

Settlement’s benefit favorable even after subtracting fees, costs, and incentive

2

awards. Moreover, the minute marginal risk alleged to each individual Class

3

Member supports the conclusion that devoting the vast majority of the net recovery

4

to remediation rather than medical screening, as the Settlement does, is reasonable

5

and ensures efficient use of the Settlement funds to redress the Class’s shared

6

injury. Finally, the Amended Settlement Agreement conditions payment on

7

execution of settlement agreements in three related matters between Defendants

8

and, respectively, another class, the Mobile Home Parks, and Cox. The Court has

9

reviewed those settlements and finds that their terms don’t unreasonably favor the

10

other class, the Mobile Home Parks, or Cox in light of the claims remaining in those

11

cases at the time of settlement, remedies sought, and the amount of the settlement

12

in this case. Nor do any other provisions of those settlements suggest that the

13

Class’s recovery was reduced to enhance the other plaintiffs’ recovery.

14

Class Counsel’s requested fees withstand close scrutiny, too. They seek 20%

15

of the total—less than the 25% benchmark, less than the maximum the clear sailing

16

agreement allows without objection, and a bit lower even than Class Counsel’s

17

lodestar. As discussed in greater detail infra, Section XII, these fees are

18

reasonable. The Court finds it unlikely that the clear sailing agreement provided a

19

non-negligible benefit to Class Counsel under these circumstances, making it

20

unlikely, too, that the Class’s interests were sacrificed in securing the clear sailing

21

provision. Because both the Class benefit and the requested fees withstand close

22

scrutiny, the Court finds no apparent collusion.

23

D.

24

The response of the Class after full, fair, and effective notice favors final

25

approval of the Settlement. Out of the estimated thousands who received notice,

26

no Class Member submitted a valid request for exclusion or filed an objection to the

27

Settlement.

28

///

Response of Class

15
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2918 Page 16 of 24

1

VI. Notice to Class

2

The Class has received the best practicable notice under the circumstances

3

of this case. The Parties’ selection and retention of Epiq Class Action & Claims

4

Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”) as the Claims Administrator was reasonable and

5

appropriate. Based on the Declaration of Cameron Azari of Epiq, the Court finds

6

that the Settlement Notices were published to the Class Members in the form and

7

manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. See Dkt. 129-6.

8

The Settlement Notices provided fair, effective, and the best practicable notice to

9

the Class of the Settlement’s terms. The Settlement Notices informed the Class of

10

Plaintiffs’ intent to seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments, set forth the

11

date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing, and explained Class Members’ rights

12

to object to the Settlement or Fee Motion and to appear at the Fairness Hearing.

13

The Settlement and the Court’s deadlines afforded Class Members reasonable time

14

to exercise such rights. See Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2013 WL 6531177, at *22-23

15

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013) (class members’ deadline to object or opt out must arise

16

after class counsel’s fee motion is filed), citing In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs.

17

Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010). The Settlement Notices fully satisfied all

18

notice requirements under the law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

19

the requirements of the California Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1781, and

20

all due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and California Constitutions.

21

VII. Notices Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

22

The Court finds that Defendants satisfied all notice requirements of the Class

23

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. See Hyte Decl., Dkt. 129-

24

5. On April 7, 2020, at Defendants’ direction, Epiq subsidiary SSI Settlement

25

Services served the notices required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), which included a copy

26

of the Settlement Agreement and other required documents, as well as notice of

27

the date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing. The Court has received no

28
16
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2919 Page 17 of 24

1

objection or response to the Settlement Agreement by any federal or state official,

2

including any recipient of the foregoing notices.

3

VIII. Incorporation of Release

4

The Release set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement is incorporated

5

in this Order in all respects. That Release is effective as of the date of the entry of

6

this Order.

7

IX. Binding Effect

8

Any Class Member who failed timely and validly to object to or opt out of the

9

Settlement has waived the right to object or opt out. See Dkt. 127 at 5. Any Class

10

Member seeking to challenge the Court’s rulings or opt out must: (a) move to

11

intervene upon a showing of good cause sufficient to overcome the presumption

12

that absent Class Members are bound by the deadline to object or opt-out and the

13

subsequent judgment; (b) request a stay of implementation of the Settlement; and

14

(c) post an appropriate bond. See, generally, Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1454-

15

1455 (discussing factors influencing trial court’s discretion in addressing untimely

16

requests to opt-out of class). Absent satisfaction of all three requirements,

17

Defendant is authorized, at its sole option and in its sole discretion, to proceed with

18

the implementation of the Settlement, including before the Effective Date, even if

19

such implementation would moot any appeal.

20

X. Implementation of Settlement

21

The Parties are directed to implement the Amended Settlement Agreement

22

according to its terms.

23

XI. Objections and Opt-Outs after Implementation

24

Any Class Member who failed to file a timely and valid objection to or opt out

25

of the Settlement has waived the right to object or opt out. Any Class Member

26

seeking to challenge the Court’s rulings or opt out must: (a) move to intervene upon

27

a showing of good cause sufficient to overcome the presumption that absent Class

28

Members are bound by the judgment and the deadline to object or opt-out;
17
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2920 Page 18 of 24

1

(b) request a stay of implementation of the Settlement; and (c) post an appropriate

2

bond. See generally Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1454-1455 (9th Cir. 1994)

3

(discussing factors influencing trial court’s discretion in addressing untimely

4

requests to opt-out of class). Absent satisfaction of all three requirements,

5

Defendants are authorized, at its sole option and in its sole discretion, to proceed

6

with the implementation of the Settlement, including before the Effective Date, even

7

if such implementation would moot any appeal.

8

XII. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses

9

Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection

10

with the action and in reaching this Settlement in the amount of $700,000.00, to be

11

paid at the time and in the manner provided in the Amended Settlement Agreement.

12

Fee awards must “be reasonable under the circumstances,” and where the award

13

comes out of a common fund, “courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar

14

method or the percentage-of-the-fund approach.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods.

15

Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). The latter approach is appropriate in

16

a common-fund case “[b]ecause the benefit to the class [in such a case] is easily

17

quantified.” Id.

18

“[C]ourts typically calculate 25% of the fund as the ‘benchmark’ for a

19

reasonable fee award, providing adequate explanation in the record of any ‘special

20

circumstances’ justifying a departure.” Id. The benchmark on its own doesn’t

21

establish reasonableness conclusively, but it’s a “helpful starting point” that can be

22

supplemented with consideration of factors including “the extent to which class

23

counsel achieved exceptional results for the class, whether the case was risky for

24

class counsel, whether counsel's performance generated benefits beyond the cash

25

settlement fund, the market rate for the particular field of law (in some

26

circumstances), the burdens class counsel experienced while litigating the case

27

(e.g., cost, duration, foregoing other work), . . . whether the case was handled on a

28

contingency basis[, . . . and] class counsel’s lodestar summary figures.” In re Online
18
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2921 Page 19 of 24

1

DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal marks

2

omitted).

3

The fee award sought in the present case is reasonable when judged by this

4

standard. Class Counsel requests a $700,000 award, representing 20% of the $3.5

5

million directed to the class’s benefit and substantially less than the $875,000

6

suggested by application of the 25% benchmark rate. Class Counsel took this case

7

on contingency, risking non-payment for 975 hours of attorney time, 150 hours of

8

paralegal time, and $552,511.92 in other costs during the three-year course of this

9

litigation. That non-payment risk was substantial in this case. As discussed supra,

10

Section V(B), the alleged increased risk of illness—the harm for which Plaintiffs

11

sought recovery—is small, even in relation to the size of the Class. The likelihood

12

that Class Counsel wouldn’t be able to recover some or all of its fees was

13

abnormally high as a result, even assuming away the difficulties of proving

14

causation, which Defendants vigorously contested, the other elements of the

15

Class’s claims, and the appropriateness of the class form. See, e.g., Trujillo v.

16

Ametek, Case No. 15-cv-1394, Dkt. 85-2 at 13-16 (Jan. 3, 2017) (Defendants’

17

expert report in related litigation opining that plaintiffs’ alleged increased risk from

18

plume isn’t “significant” against background lifetime cancer risks around 40%). The

19

underlying risk that Plaintiffs wouldn’t prevail confirms, too, that the benefits Class

20

Counsel secured in the Settlement are a strong result.

21

Class Counsel’s lodestar calculation of $711,250, while not the primary basis

22

for or necessary to the Court’s conclusion, confirms that a $700,000 award is

23

reasonable. The multiplier—the ratio of the award to the result of the lodestar

24

calculation—is less than one. Percentage-of-recovery awards with a multiplier less

25

than one are the exception in common fund cases. Surveying percentage-based

26

fee awards from 1996 to 2001 in such cases where the total award was between

27

$50 million and $200 million, the Ninth Circuit found only one in twenty-four with a

28

multiplier less than one. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 Appx. (9th Cir.
19
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2922 Page 20 of 24

1

2002). The comparison isn’t apples-to-apples, since this case is substantially

2

smaller. That size difference, though, underscores the reasonableness of the

3

multiplier here, because Courts generally award larger multipliers in smaller cases.

4

See, e.g., id. at 1047-48 (noting that in large cases, courts must consider size of

5

total fund before calculating fees as percentage of that amount); In re Washington

6

Public Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing

7

that “the percentage of an award generally decreases as the amount of the fund

8

increases”).

9

Class Counsel’s rates and fees used to arrive at the lodestar amount appear

10

reasonable, too. They charged the following rates for attorneys and staff in this

11

litigation:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

• Scott Summy, an attorney with approximately 30 years’ experience,
$1,000.00 per hour;
• John Fiske, an attorney with approximately 14 years’ experience, $750.00 per
hour;
• Jason Julius, an attorney with approximately 13 years’ experience, $550.00
per hour; and
• Jennifer Hutchison, a senior paralegal, $250 per hour.

19

See Dkt. 128-2 at 120, 128, 130 (stating law school graduation dates for each

20

attorney). These rates are reasonable in this jurisdiction for similarly complex legal

21

work. Cf. McKibben v. McMahon, Case No. EDCV 14-2171, 2019 WL 1109683 at

22

*4-*5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019) (finding rates between $650 and $900 reasonable

23

for experienced counsel in employment class action).

24

The time Class Counsel spent on this action is reasonable in view of the

25

complexity and subject matter of this litigation, the skill and diligence with which it

26

has been prosecuted and defended, and the quality of the result obtained for the

27

Class. For this case’s share of 31 fact witness depositions, 18 expert witness

28

depositions, work with experts in anticipation of a class certification motion, written
20
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2923 Page 21 of 24

1

discovery, and drafting of pleadings and briefing on discovery disputes, motions to

2

dismiss, and other tasks described in the Fiske Declaration, Mr. Summy billed

3

150 hours, Mr. Fiske billed 350 hours, Mr. Julius billed 475 hours, and

4

Ms. Hutchison billed 150 hours. These are reasonable sums for three years of

5

active litigation of a complex matter.

6

Applying the benchmark method and taking into consideration the burden and

7

risk to Class Counsel, the quality of the result, the contingency fee arrangement,

8

and Class Counsel’s lodestar summary, the Court finds a fee award of $700,000

9

reasonable and orders that Class Counsel be compensated in that amount in the

10

manner specified in the Amended Settlement Agreement. No named Plaintiff or any

11

other Class Member shall have any obligation to pay Class Counsel any further

12

amounts for attorneys’ fees, costs, or litigation expenses in this action. As no

13

objection was filed, no Class Member is entitled to seek or receive any further

14

payment of attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses incurred in connection with this

15

action.

16

Class Counsel had incurred, at the time of the Fee Motion, $552,611.92 in

17

out-of-pocket litigation expenses in connection with this litigation. These expenses

18

were of a nature typically billed to fee-paying clients and were reasonable and

19

necessary to the prosecution of this action in light of the extent of proceedings both

20

on and off the Court’s docket, the complexity of the legal and factual issues in the

21

case, the necessity of extensive expert and fact discovery, the amount at stake in

22

this litigation, and the vigorous efforts of counsel for all Parties. Accordingly, the

23

Court awards these expenses to Class Counsel, paid in accordance with the terms

24

of the Amended Settlement Agreement.

25

Epiq, as Claims Administrator, estimates total administration costs of

26

$179,283. This amount is reasonable in light of the total settlement funds and the

27

size of the class. Epiq’s can reasonably be expected to continue to expend costs

28

that are necessary and appropriate for the administration of the Class claims. Those
21
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2924 Page 22 of 24

1

costs are recoverable pursuant to the terms of the Amended Settlement

2

Agreement. The Court orders that Epiq shall be paid in the time and manner

3

provided in the Amended Settlement Agreement, according to Epiq’s invoices in an

4

amount up to $185,000. Any costs beyond that amount may be permitted pursuant

5

to further Court order.

6

XIII.

Class Representative Incentive

7

Maria Overton and Jordan Yates, whom the Court preliminarily appointed

8

Class Representatives in its Preliminary Approval Order, have actively participated

9

in and assisted Class Counsel with this litigation for the substantial benefit of the

10

Class. Overton and Yates waived their right to pursue potential individual relief.

11

Each completed substantial discovery and had begun preparations for deposition,

12

and each was prepared to pursue this matter through trial. Apart from the requested

13

incentive, Overton and Yates will receive no settlement payments or benefits of any

14

nature other than the benefits available to the Class generally.

15

The requested incentive awards of $5,000 each are reasonable in proportion

16

to their efforts in this action. See Overton Aff., Dkt. No. 129-3; Yates Aff., Dkt. No.

17

129-4. Those awards amount to 0.28% of the total Settlement value, a reasonable

18

amount in proportion to the Settlement as a whole. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp.

19

Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000) (approving $5,000 award to each of

20

two representative plaintiffs in settlement of $1.725 million). To compensate the

21

Class Representatives for the burdens of their active involvement in this action and

22

their efforts on behalf of the Class, the Court approves incentive awards in the

23

amount of $5,000 each for Overton and Yates, paid in accordance with the terms

24

of the Amended Settlement Agreement. 3

25
26
27
28

3

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides for clear sailing for incentive
awards of up to $2,500 per Class Representative. Class Counsel represents that
Defendants later agreed not to object to $5,000 each. The Settlement Notices
reflected the larger incentive, and the Court received no objection.
22
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2925 Page 23 of 24

1

XIV.

Class Member Objections

2

No Class Member filed an objection to the Settlement, an omission that can’t

3

be attributed to inadequate notice on the record before the Court. See infra,

4

Section VI. The Court also received no objections concerning the Fee Motion, and,

5

as discussed supra, considers the requested fees reasonable. As discussed

6

throughout this Order, the Court finds the Settlement and the requests for fees,

7

costs, and incentive awards reasonable.

8

XV.

No Modification of Settlement Agreement without Court Approval

9

Plaintiffs’ proposed order (but not their Motion or briefing) sought a provision

10

permitting amendment of the Settlement without further order of the Court. Rule 23

11

doesn’t permit settlement of class claims unless the Court is apprised of the

12

settlement’s terms and determines that they adequately protect the interests of

13

absent class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); see also SFBSC Management,

14

944 F.3d at 1048. This process would be reduced to a charade if the Court were to

15

permit the parties to vary the approved Settlement terms without Court supervision.

16

This Order approves the Settlement as memorialized in the Amended Settlement

17

Agreement only. No further amendments or modifications will be permitted without

18

Court approval.

19

XVI.

20
21

Enforcement of Settlement and Jurisdiction
Nothing in this Final Order shall preclude any action to enforce or interpret

the terms of the Settlement.

22

The Parties filed a Joint Motion for Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a

23

United States Magistrate Judge—that Motion is GRANTED. 4 Magistrate Judge

24

Andrew G. Schopler, or another assigned Magistrate Judge sitting in this District in

25

the event of Judge Schopler’s unavailability, will retain jurisdiction over:

26
27
4

28

The Court previously denied the Final Approval Motion’s request that the
undersigned District Judge retain jurisdiction over the Settlement. Dkt. 146.
23
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS

Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 151 Filed 12/15/20 PageID.2926 Page 24 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1) The interpretation and implementation of the Amended Settlement
Agreement;
2) Any matters arising out of or related to the interpretation or
implementation of the Agreement;
3) Resolution of any settlement disputes and enforcement of the terms of
the Agreement; and
4) Any requests to amend the settlement agreement, as discussed supra,
Section XV.
XVII. Dismissal of Action
Plaintiffs’ claims in this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without
any award of attorneys’ fees or costs except as provided in this Order.
The Court will address the pending third-party claims by separate order.

13
14
15
16

DATED: December 15, 2020
Hon. Larry A. Burns
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS