Woods et al vs. Standard Insurance Company et al

Filing 97

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting 92 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Certifying a Settlement Class, Appointing Class Counsel, Directing the Issuance of Class Notice, and Scheduling Final Fairness Hearing for 9/14/2017, at 2:00 p.m. (am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BRETT F. WOODS AND KATHLEEN
VALDES, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01327-KBM/KRS

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, AN
OREGON INSURANCE COMPANY, MARTHA
QUINTANA, A NEW MEXICO RESIDENT,
AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT RISK
MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING A SETTLEMENT CLASS,
APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL, DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF CLASS NOTICE,
AND SCHEDULING FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
This matter having come before the Court on May 5, 2017, and having considered the
proposed terms and heard the presentation of the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Certifying a Settlement Class,
Appointing Class Counsel, Directing the Issuance of Class Notice, and Scheduling a Final
Fairness Hearing (Doc. No. 92) is well taken and is hereby granted as follows:
The Court hereby FINDS:
1.

This action (the “Action”) was originally filed on November 20, 2012, in the First

Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico against Defendants Standard
Insurance Company (“Standard”), Martha Quintana (“Quintana”), and the State of New Mexico
General Services Department, Risk Management Division (“GSD”), alleging on behalf of

Plaintiffs and the proposed Class that Defendants had accepted premiums without providing
coverage in return for the premiums paid;
2.

Defendant Standard Insurance (“Standard”) removed the case to this Court on

December 28, 2012;
3.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter herein;

4.

The parties have vigorously litigated the case, including fully briefing dispositive

motions, a motion to remand, and an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order remanding the
case to state court;
5.

After extensive arms-length settlement negotiations and multiple mediations, the

parties agreed to material settlement terms by agreeing to a Memorandum of Settlement on
August 12, 2016, and, then, a formal Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval which
the parties have recommended to the Court for preliminary approval;
6.

The parties have agreed to a proposed Full Notice of Class Action and Summary

Notice of Class Action for the purpose of providing direct and individualized notice to the
proposed Class;
7.

The Court has carefully and rigorously considered the settlement terms, the

Settlement Agreement, and all of the other pleadings, papers, testimony, exhibits, discovery,
and oral arguments herein, and the presentations of counsel for the parties regarding preliminary
approval of the proposed Settlement;
8.

The Court preliminarily finds that the settlement terms are fair, reasonable and

adequate and in the best interests of the Class, considering possible benefits to the proposed
Class that could be achieved by further litigation, the length of time this action has been
pending, the expenses of further litigation, the risks and costs of further delay, the complexity of

2

this litigation, and the risk to the proposed Class of achieving a less favorable outcome, and the
Court has determined that it would be in the best interests of the parties and the ends of justice
for this Court to conduct a final approval hearing regarding the proposed settlement;
9.

For purposes of the settlement of this action (and only for such purposes, and

without an adjudication of the merits), the Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution and any other applicable law
have been met in that:
a) The proposed Class consists of tens of thousands of persons who were enrolled
for insurance coverage under Standard Group Life Insurance Policy no. 645553-A
and all amendments thereto as of all dates from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2015
according to GSD records and/or records of Local Public Bodies. The settlement
class members are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be
impracticable;
b) The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) generally is satisfied when
members of the proposed Class share at least one common factual or legal issue.
Here, Plaintiff has alleged several questions of fact and law purportedly common
to the Class, including whether Standard and GSD engaged in a common course
with respect to the collection of premiums, identification of persons covered
under Policy no. 645553-A and offering of individualized certificates of
insurance. Considering the allegations in the pleadings on file, the Court
preliminarily finds that these allegedly common questions of fact and law
predominate over questions of fact and law affecting only individual members of
the Class;

3

c) Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations that Standard and GSD engaged in uniform
conduct with respect to the members of the Class and the presentation of Class
Counsel, the Court preliminarily finds that the claims of the representative
Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class;
d) The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Class is adequately represented by
the named Plaintiffs, Brett F. Woods and Kathleen Valdes, and by experienced
class action attorneys Charles Peifer, Robert Hanson, and Matthew Jackson,
Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A. and William H. Carpenter, Carpenter Law Office
Ltd. (collectively “Class Counsel”) and that the named Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed Class, in
that (i) the interests of the named Plaintiffs and the nature of their alleged claims
are consistent with those of all members of the proposed Class, (ii) there appear to
be no conflicts between or among the named Plaintiffs and the proposed Class
Members, (iii) the named Plaintiffs have been and appear to be capable of
continuing to be active participants in both the prosecution and the settlement of
this action, and (iv) the named Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members are
represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and
prosecuting class actions of this nature; and
e) The Court preliminarily finds that a resolution of this action in the manner
proposed by the Settlement Agreement is superior to other available methods for a
fair and efficient adjudication of the action.
f) In making these preliminary findings, the Court has considered, among other
factors: (i) the interests of the proposed Class Members in individually controlling

4

the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (ii) the impracticability or
inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; (iii) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning these claims already commenced; and (iv) the
desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in a particular forum; and
10.

Good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement

Agreement filed with the Court as Exhibit 1 to the Motion and incorporated herein by reference.
2.

The Court preliminarily certifies a settlement class of all “Members” who were

enrolled for insurance coverage under Standard Group Life Insurance Policy no. 645553-A and
all amendments thereto as of all dates from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2015 according to GSD
records and/or records of Local Public Bodies. Excluded from the Class are the Judge of this
Court and her staff, Defendant Martha Quintana, and all directors, officers, and managers of
Defendant Standard Insurance Company and their immediate families, and Class Counsel. This
Class is for settlement purposes only, and should the settlement between the parties be
terminated or not finally approved, this certification shall be automatically voided.
3.

Plaintiffs Brett F. Woods and Kathleen Valdes are hereby appointed as Class

Representatives. This appointment is for settlement purposes only, and should the settlement
between the parties be terminated or not finally approved, the appointment shall be
automatically voided.
4.

The Court appoints Class Counsel, as set forth in Finding No. 9, above to

represent the Class.

5

5.

Pending resolution of the settlement proceedings, the Court hereby asserts

jurisdiction over the Class Members for the purposes of effectuating this settlement and
releasing their claims.
6.

Pending resolution of these settlement proceedings, no Class Member shall

commence or prosecute, either directly or through another person or entity, any action or
proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the settled claims against any Defendant or
other released party.
7.

The Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission, concession, or

indication by any Defendant of the validity of any claims in this Action or of any wrongdoing,
liability, or violation of law by any Defendant. Nor does the Settlement Agreement constitute
an admission, concession, or indication by Plaintiffs or the Class that their alleged damages are
limited to the settlement amount.
8.

As recommended by Class Counsel, the Court approves and appoints Dahl

Administration, LLC (“Dahl”) to administer the settlement for the purposes of providing notice
to the Class and, if the settlement is finally approved, distribution of payments to Class
members.
9.

Having considered the full Notice of Class Action Settlement and Summary

Notice of Class Action Settlement submitted by Class Counsel, the Court concludes that the
form and manner of giving notice by posting the full Notice on a settlement website and by
distributing the Summary Notice by email or first-class mail as required by this Order to the
Class is the best means of notice to members of the Class that is practicable in the
circumstances and constitutes due and sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement to all persons
entitled to participate in the proposed Settlement, in full compliance with the constitutional

6

requirements of due process and of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 23(c)
and 23(e) and that no further notice is necessary. The forms and manners of notice proposed by
Class Counsel are hereby approved and Class Counsel are hereby ordered to see that such notice
is effected as described.
10.

Not later than 30 calendar days from entry of this Order, Dahl shall establish a

website and post the full Notice of Class Action Settlement, which shall be downloadable, on
that website.
11.

Not later than 30 days from entry of this Order, Dahl shall send the Summary

Notice of Class Action by email or first-class mail to each Class Member as set forth in
Paragraphs 3.4(c) and 3.4(d) of the settlement agreement.
12.

In order to facilitate the identification of Eligible Class Members and to

implement the Plan of Allocation, within the later of three business days after the entry of this
Order or April 28, 2017 (60 days after execution of the Settlement Agreement), GSD will
produce Excel spreadsheets from the existing SHARE and Erisa databases containing the
following information for each Class Member, sorted by name: name, address currently of
record, email address (if any), social security number, date of birth, plan type, plan, coverage
election, coverage begin date, election date, effective date, and hire date. To the extent that
questions may arise relating to the identity of Class Members or the calculation of payments
pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, Defendants and Class counsel shall confer in good
faith with Dahl Administration Services and/or each other to help determine whether a response
is reasonably available from GSD’s existing SHARE and Erisa databases to those questions. If
such a conference does not resolve the issue, Class counsel or Defendants’ counsel may apply to
the Court for resolution of the issue.

7

13.

Before the date fixed by this Court for the Final Fairness Hearing, which shall be

on September 14, 2017, Class Counsel shall cause to be filed with the Clerk of the Court and
served upon Defendants’ counsel affidavits or declarations of the person or persons under
whose direction notice to the Class was effective, certifying that notice was effected as
described.
14.

If this Court ultimately determines not to approve this proposed Settlement

Agreement, or should any decision of this Court approving the proposed Settlement Agreement
be reversed on appeal, then the findings made in this Order shall become null and void and the
issues to which those findings relate herein shall remain for decision by this Court as if the
proposed Settlement Agreement had not been entered into.
15.

As recommended by Class Counsel, the Court approves and appoints Dahl to hold

and disburse the Settlement Payment and to perform all duties required by the Settlement
Agreement.
16.

On September 14, 2017, at 2 p.m., in the Cimarron Courtroom at the Pete V.

Domenici United States Courthouse, 333 Lomas Boulevard NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico, a
hearing shall be held by the Court (the “Final Fairness Hearing”) to determine: (a) whether the
Court should approve the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the terms and conditions of
the proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and enter a Final Order thereon;
(b) the amount of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses to be awarded to
Class Counsel pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; (c) the reasonableness of a request for
incentive awards to the Class Representatives; and (d) such other matters as may reasonably
come before the Court in connection with the proposed Settlement.

8

17.

Any Class Member may enter an appearance pro se or through counsel of such

Member’s own choosing and at such Member’s own expense. Any Class Member who does not
enter an appearance or appear pro se will be represented by Class Counsel.
18.

All Class Members who wish to opt out of the Class must, no later than August

25, 2017, submit to Dahl, either by letter, postcard, or electronically through the settlement
website, the following: a) the title of the Action: “Brett F. Woods and Kathleen Valdes, for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance Company, et. al., Case No.
1:12-cv-01327-KBM-KRS”; (b) the full name, email address, postal address, and telephone
number that were used in conjunction with the Class Member’s enrollment for Policy benefits
and current information if that information has changed; (c) a statement that the Class Member
does not wish to participate in the proposed settlement; and (d) the Class Member’s signature.
All Class Members who do not timely and properly submit a written exclusion from the Class
shall be enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in (as
Class members or otherwise), any lawsuit in any jurisdiction based on or relating to any of the
Released Claims, and all persons shall be enjoined from filing, commencing, or prosecuting a
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Class Members who have not timely excluded themselves,
based on or relating to any Released Claims. Furthermore, such Class Members who have not
timely excluded themselves shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement if it is approved by the
Court at the Final Fairness Hearing.
19.

Not later than ten (10) calendar days after the deadline for opting out of the Class

or objecting to the Settlement, Dahl shall provide Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel with a
list of Class members who have timely and validly excluded themselves from the Class. Not
later than five (5) days before the Final Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly file with the

9

Court a complete list of all Class Members who have validly and timely excluded themselves
from the Class.
20.

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement on any grounds must

file that objection with the Court and serve that objection by first-class mail, postmarked on or
before fifteen (15) days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, on: (i) Class Counsel, Peifer,
Hanson & Mullins, P.A., Attn: Standard Insurance Settlement, P.O. Box 25245, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87125; (ii) Standard’s counsel, Mr. Timothy A. Daniels, Figari + Davenport, LLP,
901 Main Street, Suite 3400, Dallas, Texas, 75202; and (iii) GSD’s counsel, Lisa E. Pullen,
Civerolo, Gralow & Hill, P.A., P.O. Drawer 887, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
21.

To be considered by the Court, the objection must include: (1) a heading

containing the name and case number of the Action: “Brett F. Woods and Kathleen Valdes, for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance Company, et. al., Case No.
1:12-cv-01327-KBM-KRS;” (2) the objector’s name, email address, postal address, and
telephone number that were used in conjunction with the enrollment for Policy benefits and
current information if that information has changed; (3) a detailed statement of each objection
and the factual and legal basis for each objection, and the relief that the objector is requesting;
(4) a list of and copies of all documents or other exhibits that the objector may seek to use at the
Final Fairness Hearing; and (5) a statement of whether the objector intends to appear, either in
person or through counsel, at the Final Fairness Hearing, and if through counsel, a statement
identifying the counsel’s name, postal address, phone number, email address, and the state
bar(s) to which the counsel is admitted. Any objection which is not timely mailed, or which
fails to satisfy all the foregoing requirements, shall be forever barred. A Class Member,
whether or not represented by separate legal counsel, who fails to timely mail an objection shall

10

be bound by all terms of the Release and by all proceedings, orders and judgments by this Court
in the Action. A Class Member may object either on his or her own behalf or through any
counsel retained at that Class Member’s expense. Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel shall
submit all such objections to the Court ten (10) days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing.
22.

Class Members, whether represented by an attorney or not, who have properly

and timely filed and served objections in compliance with Paragraphs 20 and 21 above may
appear at the Final Fairness Hearing.
23.

Any Class Member, whether represented by an attorney or not, who does not

timely file and serve a proper written objection shall not be permitted to object at the Final
Fairness Hearing, shall be deemed to have waived and forfeited any and all rights he or she may
have to object at the Final Fairness Hearing, shall be foreclosed from raising any objection at
the Final Fairness Hearing, and shall be bound by all of the terms of the Release and by all
proceeding, orders and judgment by this Court in the Action.
24.

Class Counsel are authorized to act on behalf of Class Members in this Action

with respect to all acts or consents required by, or which may be given pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, or such other acts which are reasonably necessary to consummate the
proposed Settlement.
25.

Five (5) days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel and Defendants’

counsel shall file with this Court, and serve one another, copies of all submissions in support of
final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement.
26.

Five (5) days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall file with the

Court, and serve on Defendants’ counsel, Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses and the Class Representatives’ applications for incentive

11

awards. Final determination of Class Counsel’s fee and litigation expense application, and of
the Class Representatives’ incentive award application, shall be made at the Final Fairness
Hearing.
27.

The Final Fairness Hearing, and all dates provided for herein, may from time to

time, and without further notice to the Class, be continued or adjourned by order of the Court.
28.

In the event the proposed Settlement Agreement is not approved by the Court, or

for any reason the parties fail to obtain a Final Order that becomes Final as described in the
Settlement Agreement, then, in either of such events, except for the provisions in Paragraph
2.1(f) requiring the payment of any remaining balance to Standard, the Settlement Agreement
shall become null and void and of no further force and effect, and shall not be used or referred
to for any purpose whatsoever. In such event, (a) except for this Paragraph, this Order,
including without limitation the findings contained herein, shall be null and void and
automatically vacated, and (b) the Settlement Agreement and all related pleadings thereto shall
be withdrawn without prejudice as to the rights of any and all parties thereto, who, in
accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, shall be restored to their
respective positions existing immediately prior to the date of execution of the Settlement
Agreement. In such event, the parties shall cooperate in scheduling matters so that no party is
prejudiced as a result of the need to recommence the litigation.
29.

The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement Agreement with such

modifications as may be agreed to by the parties to the Settlement Agreement and without
requiring further notice to the Class Members.

________________________________________
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12

Submitted by:
PEIFER, HANSON & MULLLINS, P.A.
By:

/s/ Matthew E. Jackson
Robert E. Hanson
Matthew E. Jackson
P.O. Box 25245
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125-5245
Tel: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
-andCARPENTER LAW OFFICE LTD
William H. Carpenter
201 Broadway Blvd., SE
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Approved by:
By:

via electronic approval on May 8, 2017
Timothy A. Daniels
Ryan K. McComber
Figari & Davenport, LLP
901 Main St, Ste 3400
Dallas, TX 75202
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Standard Insurance
Company and Martha Quintana
-and-

13

By:

via electronic approval on May 8, 2017
Lisa E. Pullen
Civerolo, Gralow & Hill P.A.
P.O. Drawer 887
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0887
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for State of New Mexico General
Services Department Risk Management
Division

14