Leber et al v. Starpoint Resort Group, Inc. et al
Filing
70
ORDER Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (See Order for details.) Clerk shall enter a Final Judgment of Dismissal on 7/27/11, and the Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice as of 7/27/11. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/27/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Mark R. Thierman, NSB 8285
THIERMAN LAW FIRM
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone (775) 284-1500
Leon Greenberg, NSB 8094
A Professional Corporation
633 South 4th Street - Suite 4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone (702) 383-6085
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8177
Wells Fargo Tower
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: (702) 369-6801
Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA,LLP
Darren T. Horvath, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 368205
Admitted pro hac vice (July 23, 2009)
1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Telephone: (770) 434-6868
Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
Attorneys for Defendants
RICK BRUNTON and MICHAEL LEBER
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Case No.: 09-cv-01101-RLH-PAL
Plaintiffs,
v.
STARPOINT RESORT GROUP, INC. and
GEOHOLIDAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and
“John Does”, name fictitious, actual name and
number unknown,
Defendants.
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
On June 23, 2011, the Court heard the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order
Granting Final Approval to Proposed Class Action Settlement and accompanying
declarations (Docket No. 62), as set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of
Claims (“Stipulation”). The Court has also considered the Supplemental Declaration of
Abigail Schwartz of the Settlement Administrator Rust Consulting, Inc., filed with the
Court on July 15, 2011. The Court finds and orders as follows:
1. For the purposes of this Order, the Court adopts all defined terms as
set forth in the Stipulation, which was previously filed with this Court on March 7, 2011
(Docket Nos. 58 and 58-1).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and
over all parties and Class Members in this litigation.
3. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Class Action
Settlement, which was carried out pursuant to the Stipulation, constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and fully met the requirements of due process.
4. The Court finds that none of the 542 Class Members has objected to
the Settlement. Only one Class Member, Greig Cronister, has properly requested
exclusion from the settlement and is not subject to any of the provisions of the settlement.
5. The Court finds that 171 Class Members submitted timely and valid
claims and are Authorized Claimants, as defined in the Stipulation.
Another 18
individuals submitted untimely and/or invalid claims, but the parties have requested,
pursuant to paragraph 91 of the Stipulation, that these 18 claims be honored and be
deemed timely and valid and that the Class Members making these claims be Authorized
Claimants for all purposes related to this settlement. The parties’ request is granted, and
all 18 untimely and/or invalid claims identified by the Settlement Administrator are
2
hereby deemed to also be timely and valid claims and that the Class Members making
these claims are deemed to be Authorized Claimants for all purposes related to this class
action settlement, including for all purposes under the Stipulation, the Orders of this
Court, and Final Judgment.
6. The total of 189 Class Members who have been found to have
submitted valid claims represent approximately 35% of the Class Members and under the
terms of the Stipulation collectively would be entitled to receive cash payments totaling
$121,545.24, if they had all elected to receive a cash award. However, 11 of these 189
class members have elected to receive an Alternative Settlement Option in the form of
ownership of a timeshare membership and/or vacation certificates for accommodations at
a qualifying resort in lieu of their otherwise available cash payments, as provided for
under the terms of the Stipulation. These 11 Class Members who have elected to receive
an Alternative Settlement Option in lieu of a Cash Award have been or will be identified
by the Settlement Administrator, so the applicable Alternative Settlement Option can be
processed in accordance with the Stipulation.
7. The Court finds that the Stipulation was the product of protracted,
arm’s length negotiations between experienced counsel. After considering Defendants’
potential exposure, the likelihood of success on the class claims, the risk, expense,
complexity and delay associated with further litigation, the risk of maintaining class
certification through trial, the experience and views of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the
reaction of the Class to the Settlement, as well as other relevant factors, the Court finds
that the settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation, is fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Class.
3
8. As counsel for the Class, Mark Thierman of the Thierman Law Firm
and Leon Greenberg of Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, shall be paid a fees
payment of $114,711.00 and a costs payment of $1,944.51 from the Settlement Fund for
their services on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class. The two representative plaintiffs,
Rick Brunton and Michael Leber, shall each receive a payment of $6,000 from the
Settlement Fund to compensate them for their service on behalf of the Class and in
settlement of their individual claims, such payments constituting their sole recoveries in
this case as provided for in the Stipulation.
9. The Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. shall be paid from
the Settlement Fund for their services rendered in administering the Settlement, in
accordance with the Stipulation and as provided in this paragraph. Pursuant to the
declaration of Caryn Donly, Senior Project Administrator, submitted to this Court, Rust
Consulting’s costs for administration of the settlement of this matter is $21,344.00.
(Docket No. 62, Ex. B, Declaration of Caryn Donly, ¶ 15; Docket No. 67, Supplemental
Declaration of Abigail Schwartz, ¶ 8). Payment of costs to Rust Consulting in that
amount from the Settlement Fund is approved.
10. The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Darren T. Horvath
Regarding Service of CAFA Notices, which was filed with the Court on May 31, 2011,
and finds that Defendants have provided notice of the proposed class action settlement to
the appropriate federal and state officials in accordance with all of the requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. No federal or state official has indicated
any objection or opposition to the settlement. The Court further finds that all of the
4
CAFA Notices were delivered no later than April 25, 2011, and this Order granting final
approval of the settlement has been issued more than 90 days after service of the CAFA
Notice, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).
11. The Court hereby grants final approval of the class action settlement,
and the parties are ordered to carry out the settlement as provided in the Stipulation,
except as otherwise modified by this Order. Thus, except as stated in this Order, all other
terms of the settlement will remain as stated in the Stipulation and accompanying
documents and the Orders of this Court. This Order is to take effect on July 27, 2011.
12. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment of
dismissal on July 27, 2011, and the Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice as of
July 27, 2011.
13. The Court will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing this
settlement, addressing settlement administration matters, and addressing such postjudgment matters as may be appropriate under court rules or applicable law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 20112011
JULY _____,
20, 2011.
Honorable Roger L. Hunt
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?