Kyne v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, The

Filing 154

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 09/22/2014. The case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

ELIZABETH VALDEZ KYNE and ADAM
BOROWIEC, on behalf of
themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
L.L.C., dba THE RITZ-CARLTON,
KAPALUA,
Defendant.

) Civ. No. 08-00530 ACK-RLP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
On April 17, 2014, the Court issued its Order
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement,
Approving Form of Notice, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing.
(Doc. No. 143.)
On June 12, 2014, the Court held a Final Approval
Hearing. (Doc. No. 149.) The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
requires the defendants in a class action suit to send notice of
a proposed settlement to all relevant state and federal
authorities where class members reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). A
court may not issue an order giving final approval of a proposed
settlement until 90 days have passed since the relevant
authorities were served with such notice. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).

Because Defendant sent the required CAFA notice on June 6, 2014,
the Court determined at the June 12, 2014 hearing that it would
need to hold a second final approval hearing once the 90-day CAFA
notice period elapsed. (Doc. No. 150.) The Court therefore held
its Second Final Approval Hearing on September 22, 2014.
The Court, having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 145,) finds
that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Laguna v. Coverall North America, Inc., 753
F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2014). In reaching this determination,
the Court considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals for evaluating class action settlements,
including: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the
risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5)
the extent of discovery completed and the stage of proceedings;
(6) the experience and view of counsel; and (7) the reaction of
class members to the proposed settlement. Class Plaintiffs v.
City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1291 (9th Cir. 1992). These
factors weigh in favor of approving the Settlement.
The Settlement was the product of arms-length
negotiations, and allows the class to avoid further risks and
delays to the more than five years of litigation in this case.

2

The $1,800,000 Settlement is substantial and will allow class
members to receive their actual monetary damages plus some
additional amount.
Sufficient notice was made to afford class members the
opportunity to opt out of or object to the Settlement, and the
class members reacted positively to the Settlement. Plaintiffs
have demonstrated that over 80% of the settlement funds have been
claimed by class members who filed claim forms. No class member
or other party objected to or opted out of the Settlement.
The one-third share of the Settlement requested for
attorneys’ fees and costs is reasonable given the complexity of
the case and the performance of Plaintiffs’ attorneys. The
lodestar calculation supports the percentage-fee award in this
case. Further, the $15,000 compensatory awards to the named
Plaintiffs are fair and reasonable. The named Plaintiffs assumed
the responsibility and risk of pursuing the suit, and have done
so for more than five years on behalf of the class members.
Finally, as noted above, Defendant provided notice to
the appropriate State and Federal officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1715(d) on June 6, 2014. (Doc. No. 148.)
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and orders
as follows:
1.

The Settlement is approved pursuant to Federal

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);
2.

The requested attorneys’ fee of $600,000, which

totals one-third of the total Settlement amount, is approved;
3.

The requested incentive payments for each of the

lead Plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 are approved;
4.

The Parties are directed to implement the terms of

the Settlement; and,
5.

Plaintiffs’ counsel are directed, pursuant to the

Settlement, to make additional reasonable efforts to contact any
class members who did not submit a claim form in response to the
mailed notices, and whose claims exceed $200.
The case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All
Parties shall bear their own costs.
IT IS APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 22, 2014

________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Senior United States District Judge

Kyne v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., Civ. No. 08-00530 ACK RLP, Order Granting
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

4