Garner et al v. Roseville, City of et al

Filing 27

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff. GRANTING Motions: 26 MOTION for Judgment filed by Lawrence M. Garner, Rudalev, LLC, Cordia Michigan, LLC, Garner Properties & Management, William Kaupus, Christopher Garner, 25 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Lawrence M. Garner, Rudalev, LLC, Cordia Michigan, LLC, Garner Properties & Management, William Kaupus, Christopher Garner. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAWRENCE M. GARNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-10760
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on: (1) the unopposed motion for final approval
of the class action settlement by plaintiffs – Lawrence M. Garner, Christopher
Garner, William Kaupus, Cordia Michigan, LLC, Rudalev I, LLC, and Garner
Properties & Management, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) – and City of Roseville, Glenn
Sexton, and Rodney Browning (“Defendants”); and (2) Plaintiffs’ unopposed
motion for attorney fees, costs, and incentive fee. The Court held a final fairness
and approval hearing on January 16, 2018. No class members objected.
Plaintiffs’ motions for final approval of the class action settlement [Doc. 26]
and motion for attorney fees, costs and incentive fee [Doc. 25] are GRANTED.
Moreover, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties, the members of the

Settlement Class, and the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

2.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

settlement of this action, as embodied in the terms of the Settlement Agreement, is
finally approved as a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class in light of the factual, legal, practical and procedural
considerations raised by this case.
3.

The Settlement Class and Sub-Class, collectively referred to as

“Settlement Class” is defined as follows:
Class: All persons and entities who currently own or at one time owned any
non-owner occupied residential structures located within the City of Roseville
who or which has been issued a misdemeanor ticket for failure to obtain a
Certificate of Compliance under the City’s Non-Owner-Occupied Housing
Ordinance, and subsequently paid a fine at any time since January 1, 2010
through December 15, 2016.
Sub-Class: All persons and entities who were not owners of non-owner
occupied residential structures located within the City of Roseville, yet were
issued a misdemeanor ticket for failure to obtain a Certificate of Compliance
under the City’s Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance from January 1,
2010 through December 15, 2016.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, including any and all of their
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates or controlled persons of Defendants, as well as the
officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees of Defendants and the immediate
family members of such persons. Class counsel is excluded as well.
4.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement has been entered into in

good faith following arm’s-length negotiations.

2

5.

Upon the Declaration of Dorothy Sue Merryman, the Court finds that

the notice provided to the Settlement Class Members was the best notice practicable
under the circumstances; it satisfied the requirements of due process and Federal
Rule 23(e)(1).
6.

Upon the Affidavit of Carlito H. Young, the Court finds that notice was

given to appropriate State and Federal officials in accordance with the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
7.

No objections were received.

8.

No persons validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and

the settlement.
9.

After due consideration of, among other things, the uncertainty about

the likelihood of: (a) the Class’s ultimate success on the merits; (b) the range of the
Class’s possible recovery given Defendants’ ability to pay; (c) the complexity,
expense and duration of the litigation; (d) the substance and amount of opposition to
the settlement; (e) the state of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved; (f)
all written submissions, declarations and arguments of counsel; and (g) after notice
and hearing, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. This
Court also finds that the financial settlement terms fall within the range of settlement
terms that would be considered fair, adequate and reasonable. Accordingly, this
Settlement Agreement is APPROVED and governs all issues regarding the
3

settlement and all rights of the Parties, including the Class Members. Each Class
Member (including any person or entity claiming by or through him, her or it, but
except those persons identified in Paragraph 3 above) is bound by the Settlement
Agreement, including being subject to the Releases set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
10.

Defendants created a settlement fund (the “Settlement Fund”) of

$150,000.00 to pay valid class member claims, class action settlement
administration costs, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, and an incentive award to
Plaintiffs as determined and awarded by this Court. Unclaimed monies in the
Settlement Fund must revert to Defendants.
11.

As agreed in and subject to the Settlement Agreement, each member of

the Settlement Class who or which submits a timely and valid Claim Form will be
mailed a check for their pro rata share of the Settlement Fund. Each member of the
Sub-Class who or which submits a timely and valid Claim Form will be mailed a
check for $350.00, in addition to their pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, if any.
The Claims Administrator will cause those checks to be mailed after receiving the
Settlement Funds. Checks issued to the claiming Settlement Class members will be
void 181 days after issuance. The Court allows the claim of Teri Bade per agreement
of the parties.

4

12.

As agreed between the parties, the Court approves Class Counsel’s

attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $50,000.00 plus out-of-pocket expenses in the
amount of $4,569.43. Those amounts shall be paid from the Settlement Fund when
the Final Approval Order becomes final as those terms are defined in the Settlement
Agreement. Attorney fees and costs shall be paid directly to the Law Offices of
Aaron D. Cox, PLLC. Any balance due to the Claims Administrator may be paid
directly to the Claims Administrator.
13.

As agreed between the parties, the Court approves a $2,500.00

incentive award each to Lawrence M. Garner, Christopher Garner, William Kaupus,
Cordia Michigan, LLC, Rudalev I, LLC, and Garner Properties & Management,
LLC for serving as Class Representatives. In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, that amount must be paid from the Settlement Fund when the Final
Approval Order becomes final as those terms are defined in the Settlement
Agreement. Payments must be made directly to each Plaintiff upon presentation of
a W 9 form.
14.

The Court expressly adopts and incorporates here all of the terms of the

Settlement Agreement. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement must carry out their
respective obligations under that Agreement.
15.

This action, including all claims against Defendants asserted in this

lawsuit, or which could have been asserted in this lawsuit, by or on behalf of
5

Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class members against Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice and without taxable costs to any Party.
16.

All claims or causes of action of any kind by any Settlement Class

member or anyone claiming by or through him, her or it brought in this Court or any
other forum (other than those by persons who opted out of this action) are barred
pursuant to the Releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All persons and
entities are enjoined from asserting any claims that are settled or released, either
directly or indirectly, against Defendants, in this Court or any other court or forum.
17.

If (a) the Settlement Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, or

(b) the Settlement Agreement or Final Approval Order and Judgment do not for any
reason become effective, or (c) the Settlement Agreement or Final Approval Order
and Judgment are reversed, vacated or modified in any material or substantive
respect, then any and all orders entered pursuant to the Settlement Agreement will
be deemed vacated. If the settlement does not become final in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Approval Order and Judgment will be
void and deemed vacated.
18.

The Court retains jurisdiction for 180 days to determine all matters

relating in any way to this Final Order and Judgment, the Preliminary Approval
Order, or the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to, their

6

administration, implementation, interpretation or enforcement. The Court also
retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order and the Settlement Agreement.
19.

The Court finds that there is no just reason to delay the enforcement of

this Final Approval Order and Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 16, 2018

7