Torregano et al v. Sader Power, LLC et al

Filing 38

FINAL JUDGMENT approving and adopting the Settlement Agreement. Except as to any individual claim of Lloyd E. Bowman and Johanna V. Bowman, who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Court dismisses this lawsuit, and all cl aims and causes of action asserted in this lawsuit by the Class Members against GP, SP and SPE on their merits, with prejudice. This dismissal with prejudice is without costs to any party, except as specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement . The Court awards to Class Counsel attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amountof $1,492,500.00. The Court approves the incentive payments to the Class Representatives, Twyla Torregano, Clement Torregano, Jr., and John Pooler $2,500.00 each. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 2/28/19.(ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TWYLA TORREGANO, CLEMENT
TORREGANO, JR., AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-293

SADER POWER, LLC, SADER
POWER ENTERPRISES, LLC, AND
GRISWOLD POWER, LLC

SECTION: "S" (3)

FINAL JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Court on the 20th day of February, 2019, on the Motion of
the Plaintiffs, Twyla Torregano, Clement Torregano, Jr., and John Pooler (“Plaintiffs”), in the
putative class action for final approval of their class action settlement with Defendant, Griswold
Power, LLC (“GP”). Having reviewed and considered all timely submissions made in
connection with the proposed settlement, and having reviewed and considered the files and
records herein, the Court finds and concludes as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning ascribed
thereto in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit, and over all parties to
this lawsuit, including all Class Members, as such term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.
3. The Court has determined that the Class Notice given to the Class Members fully and
accurately informed the Class Members of all material elements of the proposed settlement,

constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and fully complied with the
requirements of due process and applicable, rules, statutes, and law.
4. The Court now finds and concludes that:
(a)

the Class Members are so numerous that joinder of separate lawsuits on behalf
of all Class Members is impracticable;

(b)

there are questions of law and fact common to the Class;

(c)

the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Class;

(d)

the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and protected the interest of the Class Members at all times;

(e)

the Solar Power Maintenance Agreements that Class Members entered into
with GP are substantially similar to that signed by the Class Representatives;

(f)

the Solar Panel Arrays installed on the Properties of the Class Representatives
are substantially similar to those installed on the Properties of the Class
Members; and

(g)

a class action lawsuit is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy and questions of law and fact
common to the Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual Class Members considering: (i) the interest of Class Members
individually controlling the prosecution of a separate lawsuit or arbitration; (ii)
the extent and nature of any other proceedings concerning the controversy
already commenced by Class Members; (iii) the desirability or undesirability
2

of concentrating the determination of the claims in a single forum; and (iv) the
difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action
lawsuit.
5. The Court orders final certification of the Class consisting of:
All persons who entered into a Solar Power Maintenance Agreement with GP, and all
current owners of Property in Louisiana upon which Solar Panel Arrays owned by GP are
installed. The following persons are excluded:
a.

any Defendant;

b.

Lloyd E. Bowman and Johanna V. Bowman who own the property at 62099
Strahan Road, Amite, LA 70422, who are the only Class Members who have
requested to be excluded from the settlement.

6. The Court has reviewed the objections submitted by Denise Trepagnier, 6935 Deanne
Street, New Orleans, LA 70126, and Cynthia and Sydney Trepagnier, 4917 Frankford Street,
New Orleans, LA 70126 (the “Trepagniers”). The Court finds that the Trepagniers are not
objecting to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement on behalf of the Class.
Rather, this Court finds that the Trepagniers’ objections are individual, based exclusively on
their unsupported contention that they, not other Class Members, should receive additional
monetary compensation through the settlement. The Trepagniers have not established that they
should be treated differently than the Class nor have they established that the settlement should
be rejected or modified in any way. Therefore, this Court hereby denies the Trepagniers’
objections.
3

7. The Court finally approves and adopts the Settlement Agreement and finds that it is in
all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, just, and in compliance with all applicable requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process
Clause), and all other applicable law, and that this settlement is in the best interest of the Parties
and the Class Members.
8. All Class Members are bound by the settlement.
9. The Court orders the Parties to the Settlement Agreement to perform their obligations
thereunder pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
10. Ownership of the Solar Panel Arrays is hereby transferred to the Class Members who
are the current owners of the Properties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement.
11. Except as to any individual claim of Lloyd E. Bowman and Johanna V. Bowman,
who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Court dismisses this
lawsuit, and all claims and causes of action asserted in this lawsuit by the Class Members against
GP, SP and SPE on their merits, with prejudice. This dismissal with prejudice is without costs to
any party, except as specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement.
12. The waivers and releases of the Released Claims set forth in the Settlement
Agreement are hereby approved. The Court adjudges that the Class Members shall, to the extent
provided by the Settlement Agreement, conclusively be deemed to have released and discharged
the Released Parties from any and all claims of any Class Member to the full extent provided in
the Settlement Agreement and are hereby permanently enjoined from instituting or maintaining
4

any action for any Released Claim against any Released Parties.
13. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, the Court retains
jurisdiction over: (a) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
further orders of the Court until the Final Judgment contemplated in the Settlement Agreement
has become effective, and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto shall
have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; (b) any other action necessary to
conclude this settlement and to implement the Settlement Agreement; and (c) the enforcement,
construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
14. The Court awards to Class Counsel attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in the amount
of ONE MILLION, FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND
NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,492,500). GP shall pay this amount as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.
15. The Court approves the incentive payments to the Class Representatives, Twyla
Torregano, Clement Torregano, Jr., and John Pooler of TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,500.00) each. GP shall pay these sums as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.
16. Neither this Final Judgment nor the Settlement Agreement is an admission or
concession by GP of any fault, omission, liability, or wrongdoing. This Final Judgment is not a
finding of the validity or invalidity of any claims in this action or a determination of any
wrongdoing by GP. The final approval of the Settlement Agreement does not constitute any
opinion, position, or determination of this Court, one way or the other, as to the merits of the
5

claims and defenses of GP or the Class Members.
17. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Finality Date for the
effectiveness of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Judgment will occur at such time as this
Final Judgment is no longer subject to appeal or judicial review.

28th

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of February, 2019.

____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6