Sinanyan et al v. Luxury Suites International, LLC et al

Filing 133

ORDER granting 122 Motion for Attorney Fees; ORDER granting 125 Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DON SPRINGMEYER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1021
ROYI MOAS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10686
JORDAN BUTLER, ESQ
Nevada Bar No. 10531
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
[phone]/Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ALICE SINANYAN, an individual;
)
JAMES KOURY, an individual and trustee )
of the Koury Family Trust; and SEHAK )
TUNA, an individual, on behalf of
)
themselves and others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LUXURY SUITES INTERNATIONAL, )
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; )
RE/MAX PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada )
limited liability company; JETLIVING
)
HOTELS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability )
company; and DOES 1 through 100,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CASE NO: 2:15-cv-00225-GMN-VCF
District Judge Gloria M. Navarro
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS,
AND INCENTIVE AWARD TO
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
SINANYAN; AND (2) PARTIES’
JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT

22
23

ORDER

24

This action involves claims brought by Plaintiff/Class Representative Alice

25

Sinanyan (“Sinayan” or “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of a putative class of 123

26

condominium owners, against property rental manager JetLiving Hotels, LLC

27

(“JetLiving” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) alleged that

28

JetLiving violated its contractual, statutory, and common law duties by failing to disclose
Page 1 of
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

1

its collection of a “resort fee” from rental guests—all of which JetLiving disputed and

2

denied. On January 12, 2018, this Court held a Final Fairness Hearing regarding the

3

parties’ Joint Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF

4

No. 125), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Incentive Award to

5

Class Representative Alice Sinanyan (ECF No. 122).
For the reasons stated herein, both Motions are GRANTED.

6
7
8
9

I.

BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging various state law

violations on behalf of a putative class comprising of all condominium owners at the

10

Signature at MGM Grand (“The Signature”) who contracted with JetLiving to manage

11

the rental of their condominium units after January 5, 2009 (the “Class.”) Specifically,

12

the Complaint alleged that, pursuant to the JetLiving Rental Agreement, members of the

13

Class were entitled to 65% of a “resort fee” collected by JetLiving from rental guests.

14

According to Plaintiff, not only did JetLiving retain all resort fees, it further failed to

15

disclose that it was collecting the resort fees. Based on these allegations, the Complaint

16

alleged causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of

17

good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) fraudulent concealment;

18

(5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 41.600; (7)

19

breach of fiduciary duty; and (8) unjust enrichment.

20

As a result of successful mediation with Hon. Philip M. Pro (Ret.) on January 14,

21

2016, the parties reached a class-wide settlement ( the “JetLiving Settlement") based on a

22

total settlement amount and/or common fund sum of $250,000, allocated as follows: (1)

23

attorney’s fees not to exceed $100,000; (2) costs not to exceed $10,000; (3) Class

24

Representative Incentive Award not to exceed $10,000; (4) Administrative expenses not

25

to exceed $9,000; and (5) remaining to the Class on a pro rata basis based on the total

26

resort fees collected by JetLiving from the rental of the individual Class member’s unit(s)

27

divided by the total resort fees collected by JetLiving from the rental of all non-opt out

28

Class member’s units. (See Order, ECF No. 120 at p. 2:15-25). On July 20, 2017,
Page 2 of 14

1

pursuant to the Parties’ Second Renewed Motion for an Order (ECF No. 111), this Court

2

by Order dated July 20, 2017 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), (a) conditionally

3

certified the Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of a class of individuals

4

consisting of any and all individuals who own or owned a condominium at The Signature

5

at MGM Grand and contracted with JetLiving to manage the rental of their condominium

6

from January 5, 2009 to and including the date of preliminary approval of this class

7

action settlement; (b) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (c) appointed Wolf, Rifkin,

8

Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP as Class Counsel; (d) ordered that Notice of the

9

proposed Settlement be provided to potential Class Members; (e) provided Class

10

Members with the opportunity to: (i) opt in to or out of the Class or (ii) object to the

11

proposed Settlement; and (f) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the

12

Settlement. (ECF No. 120). The Court also granted preliminary approval of Plaintiff’s

13

attorneys’ fee request, finding that the renewed and lowered proposed award of 25% of

14

the common fund aligned with Ninth Circuit benchmarks. Id. at p. 5. Therein, Court

15

further ordered separate, bifurcated briefing regarding (1) Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees

16

and costs, and incentive award to the Class Representative; and (2) Final Approval of

17

Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to that Order, the Final Fairness Hearing was held on

18

January 12, 2018. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated July 20, 2017, the Notice of

19

Proposed Class Action Settlement (the “Class Notice”) was mailed to potential members

20

of the Class to notify them of, among other things: (i) the Action pending against

21

JetLiving; (ii) the certification of the Action by the Court to proceed as a class action on

22

behalf of the Court-certified Class; and (iii) their right to opt in to the Settlement, their

23

right to request to be excluded from the Class, the effect of remaining in the Class or

24

requesting exclusion, and the requirements for requesting exclusion.

25

On November 13, 2017, Class Counsel filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

26

Costs, and Incentive Award to Class Representative Sinanyan relating to Settlement with

27

Defendant JetLiving, (ECF No. 122). Thereafter, on December 11, 2017, the Parties filed

28

a Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement;
Page 3 of 14

The Court conducted a hearing on January 12, 2018 (the “Fairness Hearing”) to

1
2

consider, among other things: (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are

3

fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class

4

Representative and the other Class Members, and should therefore be approved; and (ii)

5

whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against

6

JetLiving. In addition, the Court heard Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

7

Costs, and Incentive Award to Class Representative Sinanyan relating to Settlement with

8

Defendant JetLiving.

9

II.

10

LEGAL STANDARD
The Ninth Circuit has declared that a strong judicial policy favors settlement of

11

class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

However, a class action may not be settled without court approval. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

13

When the parties to a putative class action reach a settlement agreement prior to class

14

certification, “courts must peruse the proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of

15

the certification and the fairness of the settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938,

16

952 (9th Cir. 2003). At the preliminary stage, the court must first assess whether a class

17

exists. Id. (citing Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)).

18

Second, the court must determine whether the proposed settlement "is

19

fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,

20

1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Pre-class certification settlements “must withstand an even higher

21

level of scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than is ordinarily

22

required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court's approval as fair.” In re Bluetooth

23

Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011). This heightened scrutiny

24

“ensure[s] that class representatives and their counsel do not secure a disproportionate

25

benefit ‘at the expense of the unnamed plaintiffs who class counsel had a duty to

26

represent.’” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hanlon,

27

150 F.3d at 1027). As such, courts must evaluate the settlement for evidence of

28

collusion. Id.
Page 4 of 14

If the court preliminarily certifies the class and finds the proposed settlement fair

1
2

to its members, the court schedules a fairness hearing when it makes a final determination

3

as to the fairness of the class settlement. Finally, the court must “direct notice in a

4

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R.

5

Civ. P. 23(e)(1).

6

III.

7

DISCUSSION
The Court previously analyzed this case under Rule 23’s certification requirements

8

(see Order, ECF No. 83), and conditionally certified the proposed class. (See Order, ECF

9

No. 120). The Court need not repeat its Rule 23 analysis here, except to note that Rule 23

10

has been satisfied in its entirety, and final certification of the proposed class is

11

appropriate. Rather, the success of the pending motions and proposed final class action

12

settlement hinges upon whether the proposed settlement “is fundamentally fair, adequate

13

and reasonable.” See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. In this regard, the Court previously

14

expressed concern that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request for a fee award of 40% was

15

unsupported by applicable Ninth Circuit methods – the percentage method, or the

16

lodestar method – for calculating a reasonable attorneys’ fee award. (See Order, ECF No.

17

105). The Court indicated that Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion (ECF No. 111)

18

remedied these defects by reducing Plaintiff’s Counsel’s requested fee award to twenty-

19

five percent (25%) of the common fund, thus aligning with Ninth Circuit standards. See

20

Powers v. Eichen, 229 F. 3d 1249, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, the parties

21

must, to some degree, justify the award at the final stage because any award of fees will

22

directly reduce the amount payable to the Class, and thus bears on the present fairness

23

inquiry. Martinez v. Realogy Corp., No. 3:10-cv-00755-RCJ-VPC, 2013 WL 5883618, at

24

*6 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2013).

25

This is a common fund case. Under regular common fund procedures, the parties

26

settle for the total amount of the common fund and shift the fund to the court's

27

supervision. The plaintiffs’ lawyers then apply to the court for a fee award from the fund.

28

See Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting
Page 5 of 14

1

that in a common fund case, “a court has control over the fund—even one created

2

pursuant to a settlement, as here[—] . . . and assesses the litigation expenses against the

3

entire fund so that the burden is spread proportionally among those who have

4

benefited.”). In setting the amount of common fund fees, the district court has a special

5

duty to protect the interests of the class. On this issue, the class’s lawyers occupy a

6

position adversarial to the interests of their clients. Staton, 327 F.3d at 970. As the Ninth

7

Circuit has explained,

8
9
10
11
12
13

[b]ecause in common fund cases the relationship between
plaintiffs and their attorneys turns adversarial at the feesetting stage, courts have stressed that when awarding
attorneys' fees from a common fund, the district court must
assume the role of fiduciary for the class plaintiffs.
Accordingly, fee applications must be closely scrutinized.
Rubber-stamp approval, even in the absence of objections, is
improper.

14

Id. (emphasis added); see also In re Coordinated Pre-trial Proceedings in Petroleum

15

Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602, 608 (9th Cir. 1997) (“In a common fund case, the

16

judge must look out for the interests of the beneficiaries, to make sure that they obtain

17

sufficient financial benefit after the lawyers are paid. Their interests are not represented

18

in the fee award proceedings by the lawyers seeking fees from the common fund.”).

19

An award of attorney fees for creating a common fund may be calculated in one of

20

two ways: (1) a percentage of the funds created; or (2) “the lodestar method, which

21

calculates the fee award by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent by a

22

reasonable hourly rate and then enhancing that figure, if necessary, to account for the

23

risks associated with the representation.” Graulty, 886 F.2d at 272. The Ninth Circuit has

24

approved either method for determining a reasonable award of fees. Id. However, the fee

25

award must always be reasonable under the circumstances. In re Wash. Pub. Power

26

Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 1994).

27
28

The typical range of acceptable attorney fees in the Ninth Circuit is 20% to 30% of
the total settlement value, with 25% considered a benchmark percentage. Vizcaino v.
Page 6 of 14

1

Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002); Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249,

2

1256 (9th Cir. 2000). In assessing whether the percentage requested is fair and

3

reasonable, courts generally consider the following factors: (1) the results achieved; (2)

4

the risk of litigation; (3) the skill required; (4) the quality of work performed; (5) the

5

contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden; and (6) the awards made in similar

6

cases. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047-50. In circumstances where a percentage recovery

7

would be too small or too large in light of the hours worked or other relevant factors, the

8

“benchmark percentage should be adjusted, or replaced by a lodestar calculation.” Torrisi

9

v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993).

10

Here, “Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $62,500, or 25

11

percent of the common fund.” (Joint Mot. for Order, 21:11-12). Counsel’s proposed

12

award aligns with the Ninth Circuit's “benchmark” of twenty-five percent, and the Court

13

therefore need not conduct a cross check with the loadstar amount. See Powers, 229 F.3d

14

at 1256-57 (“[T]wenty-five percent of the recovery [is] a ‘benchmark’ for attorneys’ fees

15

calculations under the percentage-of-recovery approach.”). Finding the percentage

16

requested by Plaintiff’s Counsel not unreasonable, and having previously signaled its

17

approval, the Court hereby approves Plaintiff's Counsel’s fee request in the amount of

18

$625,500 as reasonable under Ninth Circuit standards. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047

19

(observing that percentage awards of between twenty and thirty percent are common).

20

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request for reimbursement costs in the amount of $8,379.53, as set

21

forth in Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, accords with the proposed

22

settlement terms, and is also approved.

23

The Court must still determine whether the requested incentive award for

24

Sinanyan in the amount of $10,0000 is appropriate in light of “the proportion of the

25

payments relative to the settlement amount,” “the size of the payment,” “the actions the

26

plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has

27

benefitted from those actions,” and “the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended

28

in pursuing the litigation.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 952; see also Radcliffe v. Experian Info.
Page 7 of 14

1

Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that unreasonably high

2

incentive awards can destroy adequacy of class representatives). (See Order, ECF No.

3

120). At its discretion, a district court may award incentive payments to named plaintiffs

4

in class action cases. Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir.

5

2009). The purpose of incentive awards is to “compensate class representatives for work

6

done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaking in

7

bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private

8

attorney general.” Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 958-59. To justify an incentive award,

9

therefore, a class representative must present “evidence demonstrating the quality of

10

plaintiff’s representative service,” such as “substantial efforts taken as class

11

representative to justify the discrepancy between [his] award and those of the unnamed

12

plaintiffs.” Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 669 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Without

13

satisfactory elaboration on these points, courts are justified in reducing incentive awards

14

following the final fairness hearing to a reasonable amount. See, e.g., Wolph v. Acer Am.

15

Corp., No. C 09-01314 JSW, 2013 WL 5718440, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013).

16

The Court is satisfied that Sinanyan is deserving of the requested service award in

17

light of her extensive participation since the outset of this matter. The Court is further

18

satisfied with the representation that (i) Sinanyan was instrumental in securing the

19

requested relief for the Class, dedicating over 250 hours in pursuit of the class claims at

20

issue from the time of discovery of the alleged resort fee underpayments up to and

21

including settlement; (ii) that Sinanyan conducted a robust initial investigation of the

22

potential claims, pouring through personal financial documents, earning statements and

23

guest rental statements for her respective unit(s) at the Signature, communicating with

24

other unit owners and rental management representatives, and subsequently researching

25

and hiring counsel, (iii) that during the litigation, Sinanyan was intimately involved at

26

every step, actively consulting with counsel regarding industry standards; and (iv) that as

27

a resident of California, Sinanyan traveled on numerous occasions to Las Vegas for

28

meetings with counsel, depositions, and the successful mediation with Judge Pro. The
Page 8 of 14

1

Court also notes that Sinanyan was also present at the Final Fairness Hearing, and

2

submitted a detailed log of her case-related activities over the course of the litigation,

3

including time spent on each task. (See ECF No. 127.) Sinanyan went above and beyond

4

the scope of her duties and obligations as a class representative, and derived a tangible

5

benefit for the Class as a direct result of her efforts. This Court, therefore, approves the

6

requested incentive award for Sinanyan in the amount of $10,000.

7

The Court further finds that the proposed settlement is fair to the members of the

8

Class in light of the strength of the Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense and complexity of

9

the matter, the amount offered, the experience and views of counsel, and the lack of a

10

single objection or exclusion to the settlement. See, Ninth Circuit in Churchill Vill.,

11

L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004). According to the parties, the total

12

settlement amount of $250,000 represents approximately 40% of the perspective damages

13

in this action under a best-case-scenario for Plaintiffs, and the common fund remainder of

14

$160,120.47 to the Class is not an insubstantial sum. (See ECF No. 125 at pgs. 17-18.)

15

The net class funds are to be apportioned on a pro rata basis based on the total resort fees

16

collected by JetLiving from the rental of the individual Class member’s unit(s) divided by

17

the total resort fees collected by JetLiving from the rental of all non-opt out Class

18

member’s units. For her part, Sinanyan will share equally in the net settlement to the

19

Class, such that she is not receiving preferential treatment as member of the Class. In

20

terms of fairness, the Court also notes that there have been no objections to the proposed

21

settlement by any of the Class Members following mailing of the Class Notice. (See ECF

22

No. 125 at p. 21.) Additionally, the Court notes that there were no objections nor opt-

23

outs to the settlement, and is satisfied with the fact that unclaimed funds do not revert to

24

the Defendant.

25

In addition, the Court previously found that the notice and exclusion form

26

proposed by Plaintiffs met the requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 23(c)(2)(B),

27

and that the proposed mail delivery was also appropriate in these circumstances. (See

28

Joint Mot. for Order 7:10-15). The Court is satisfied from the declaration made by the
Page 9 of 14

1

third party administrator CPT Group that adequate notice was provided in accordance

2

with the Court’s Order.

3

IV.

4

CONCLUSION
WHEREAS, the Court, having reviewed and considered the Settlement

5

Agreement, all papers filed and proceedings herein in connection with the Settlement, all

6

oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, including the objections

7

filed with respect thereto, Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and

8

Incentive Award to Class Representative Sinanyan relating to Settlement with Defendant

9

JetLiving and all papers filed in support thereto, and the record in the Action, and good

10
11
12
13

cause appearing therefore;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED:
1.

Incorporation of Settlement Documents. This Order incorporates and

14

makes a part hereof: (a) the Parties’ Settlement Agreement; (b) the Settlement Notice; (c)

15

the briefs, affidavits, declarations and other materials filed in support of the Settlement

16

and Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive award to Class

17

Representative Sinanyan; (d) the record at the Fairness Hearing; (e) the documents listed

18

on the docket sheet or otherwise submitted to the Court; and (f) all prior proceedings in

19

the action.

20

2.

Final Class Certification. The Class preliminarily certified by this Court

21

is hereby finally certified for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and

22

(b)(3), the Court finding that the Class satisfies all the applicable requirements of Fed. R.

23

Civ. P. 23 and due process. The Class shall consist of any and all individuals or entities

24

who own or owned a condominium at The Signature at MGM Grand and contracted with

25

JetLiving to manage the rental of their condominium from January 5, 2009 to and

26

including the date of preliminary approval of this class action settlement.

27
28

3.

Requests for Exclusion. The Court finds that no member of the Class has

submitted a timely or untimely request for exclusion from the Class. Therefore, all
Page 10 of 14

1

members of the Class are bound by the terms and conditions of the Settlement

2

Agreement, and this Final Order.

3

4.

Adequacy of Representation. Class Representative Alice Sinanyan has

4

adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and

5

implementing the Settlement. Don Springmeyer, Esq. and Royi Moas, Esq. of Wolf,

6

Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP are experienced and adequate Class Counsel.

7

Class Representatives and Class Counsel have satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 23(a)(4) and 23(g).

9

5.

Settlement Notice. The Court finds that the dissemination of the

10

Settlement Notice, implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and this Court’s

11

Preliminary Approval Order: (i) was implemented in accordance with the Preliminary

12

Approval Order; (ii) constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the

13

circumstances; (iii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the

14

circumstances, to apprise Class Members (a) of the effect of the Settlement (including the

15

Releases provided for therein), (b) of Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’

16

fees and costs, an incentive award to the Settlement Class Representative, (c) of their

17

right to object to any aspect of the Settlement, (d) of their right to opt in to the Class or

18

opt out of the class, (e) of their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing, and (f) of the

19

binding effect of the Orders and Judgment in this action, whether favorable or

20

unfavorable, on all persons who did not request exclusion from the Class; (iv) constituted

21

due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice of the

22

proposed Settlement; and (v) satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules

23

of Civil Procedure.

24

6.

Final Settlement Approval. Pursuant to, and in accordance with Rule 23

25

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby fully and finally approves the

26

Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement in all respects (including, without

27

limitation: the amount of the Settlement, the Releases provided for therein, and the

28

dismissal with prejudice of claims against JetLiving pending satisfaction of judgment as
Page 11 of 14

1

set forth below), and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and

2

adequate, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class Representative and the other

3

Class Members. The Settlement is approved.

4

7.

Implementation of the Settlement. The Parties are directed to implement,

5

perform and consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions

6

contained in the Settlement Agreement. The Court further orders JetLiving to fund the

7

Settlement Fund in the total amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00),

8

and orders the Claims Administrator to disburse the Settlement Fund, after disbursement

9

of Court approved attorney fees, costs, service award, and administrative costs, to the one

10
11

hundred twenty-three (123) Class Members on a pro-rata basis.
8.

Award of Attorney Fees and Costs. In addition, the Court hereby grants

12

Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Incentive Award to Class

13

Representative Sinanyan relating to Settlement with Defendant JetLiving. The Court

14

finds that Class Counsel’s requested fees are reasonable and are based upon the actual

15

time expended by Class Counsel in the litigation of this matter and thereby orders that the

16

following amounts be paid from the Settlement Fund: (a) attorneys’ fees in the amount of

17

$62,500.00 and (b) costs in the amount of $8,379.53.

18

9.

Incentive Awards for Settlement Class Representatives. Pursuant to the

19

terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’

20

Fees and Costs, and Incentive Award to Class Representative Sinanyan relating to

21

Settlement with Defendant JetLiving, the Court also grants Class Counsel’s request for an

22

Incentive Award to Settlement Class Representative Alice Sinanyan in the amount of ten

23

thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The Court finds that this amount is reasonable and

24

appropriate based upon the services the Settlement Class Representative provided in

25

litigating this matter.

26

10.

Administrative Expenses. In addition, the Court hereby grants the Parties’

27

request for payment from the Settlement Fund of administrative expenses to CPT Group,

28

Inc., and designated third party administrator, in the amount of $9,000.00 and upon
Page 12 of 14

1

completion of its administrative obligations.
11.

2

Releases. This Court orders that without further action by anyone, upon

3

the Effective Date of the Settlement, Settlement Class Representative and each of the

4

other Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators,

5

predecessors, successor, affiliates and assigns, shall be deemed to have, and by operation

6

of law and of this Order shall have, fully, finally, and forever released JetLiving and its

7

past, present, and future subsidiaries, parent companies, its predecessors in interest and/or

8

ownership, successors in interest and/or ownership, partners, licensees, assignees,

9

insurers, including claims under any and all insurance policies, estates, and other

10

affiliates and/or related entities, and each of the foregoing persons’ respective past,

11

present, and future officers, directors, attorneys, shareholders, indemnitees, predecessors,

12

successors, trusts, trustees, partners, associates, principals, divisions, employees, insurers,

13

members, agents, representatives, brokers, consultants, heirs, and assigns, any and all

14

claims, demands, controversies, actions, causes of action, debts, liabilities, rights,

15

contracts, damages, costs (including attorney’s fees and court and litigation expenses),

16

expenditures, indemnities, obligations, and alleged losses of every kind or nature

17

whatsoever, known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, direct or indirect, fixed or

18

contingent, asserted or unasserted, patent or latent, individually or on behalf of the

19

general public, which the Releasing Parties asserted, have ever had, now have, or may

20

hereafter have, related to, arising out of, or which could have been asserted, inferred,

21

implied, included or connected in any way with any of the allegations in this Action,

22

including, without limitation, any claims, whether they arise under federal law, common

23

law, or under the laws of any state, pertaining to JetLiving.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Page 13 of 14

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees and

2

Costs and Incentive Award to Class Representative Alice Sinanyan, (ECF No. 122) and

3

the Joint UNOPPOSED MOTION for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (EFC

4

No. 125), are GRANTED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated this ___day of February, 2018.

____________________________________
Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

7
8

11

Respectfully Submitted by Counsel for
Plaintiffs and the Class, who hereby certifies,
pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(f), that the
Proposed Order was served upon and approved
by counsel for JetLiving.

12

DATED this 6th day of February, 2018.

13

WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP

9
10

14
15
16
17
18
19

/s/ Royi Moas, Esq.
DON SPRINGMEYER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1021
ROYI MOAS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10686
JORDAN BUTLER, ESQ
Nevada Bar No. 10531
3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 14 of 14