Dickerson et al v. York International Corporation et al
FINAL JUDGMENT & ORDER (Memorandum [100} filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT & DISMISSAL. (See order & jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/22/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN DICKERSON, et al.,
CORPORATION, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1105
(Chief Judge Conner)
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
This matter came for hearing on August 16, 2017 (the “Final Approval
Hearing”), upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 94) for final approval of
class action settlement and motion (Doc. 92) for approval of attorneys’ fees and
expenses, to determine whether the terms of the parties’ Amended Settlement
Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) are fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be finally approved, and whether final judgment should be entered.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
This Final Judgment and Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Dismissal (“Final Approval Order”) hereby incorporates by
reference the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and all terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
This Court has jurisdiction to enter this Final Approval Order. The
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and all parties to the
Action, including all Settlement Class Members (“Class Members” or “Settlement
For purposes of settlement only, the Court finds the Court finds
that the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Class Members is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of
law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical
of the claims of the Settlement Class they seek to represent; (d) Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and continue to represent the
interests of the Settlement Class; (e) the questions of law and fact common to
the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members; and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication and resolution of the controversy.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally certifies this Action as a class action for purposes of settlement on
behalf of the Settlement Class that was preliminarily approved by the Court in its
Order dated March 15, 2017 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”):
all individuals and entities in the United States who
during the time period from January 1, 2008 to March 13,
2017, purchased an uncoated York, Fraser-Johnston,
Luxaire, Coleman, Evcon, Guardian, Champion, or
Dayton brand copper evaporator coil or copper condenser
coil manufactured and sold by JCI or any of its Affiliates,
separately or as part of a split system or packaged
residential air handler, condensing unit, or HVAC unit,
that is covered by the original limited five year warranty
or extended ten year warranty.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) the Judge to whom this
matter has been assigned and any member of the Judge’s immediate family; (b) the
Mediator and any member of her immediate family; and (c) the 168 Class Members
(persons and/or entities) who requested exclusion from the Settlement Class as set
forth in Exhibit G to the Declaration of Troy Walitsky on behalf of Angeion Group,
LLC, Settlement Administrator.
The Court appoints Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., Greg
Coleman of Greg Coleman Law, P.C., and Jonathan Shub of Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C., as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs Steven Dickerson, Robert
Hester, Nancy Roberts, Katie Evans Moss, and Richard Sanchez are appointed as
the Class Representatives for the Settlement Class.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary
Approval Order, notice of this Settlement was provided to all Class Members who
could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the
Class of the pendency of the Action as a class action and of the terms and conditions
of the Settlement met the requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities
All Settlement Class Members other than the 168 Class Members who
excluded themselves as set forth in Exhibit G to the Declaration of Troy Walitsky on
behalf of Angeion Group, LLC, Settlement Administrator, are bound by this Final
Approval Order and enjoined under applicable law, including, without limitation,
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65, from commencing or prosecuting any of the Released
Claims in any jurisdiction, court or forum against any of the Released Parties
relating to or arising out of the subject matter of the Action. The term Released
Claims, however, does not include: (a) the right to enforce the Settlement; (b)
Personal Injury Claims; or (c) claims that do not relate to the Copper Coils.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
hereby grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and finds that it is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The
Court further finds that the Settlement is the result of arm’s-length negotiations
between experienced counsel representing the interests of the parties.
The twelve (12) objections to the Settlement that have been filed with
the Court have been considered and overruled.
Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement is approved in all respects and
shall be consummated pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice
with each party to bear their own costs, except as provided in the Settlement
Agreement, as against Defendants.
The plan of distribution and allocation set forth in the Settlement
Agreement is approved. The Settlement Administrator shall administer all claims
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. No Settlement
Class Member shall have any claim against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Counsel,
Defendant, Defendant’s Counsel, or the Settlement Administrator, based on the
distributions made substantially in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
The Court reserves jurisdiction over (a) the administration,
implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement; (b) the allowance,
disallowance, or adjustment of any Class Member’s claim; and (c) any other matters
related or ancillary to the foregoing.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Berger & Montague, P.C., Greg Coleman Law P.C. and Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,000,000
plus reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $22,176.81.
The Court approves the requested service awards to the Named
Plaintiffs of $2,500 each for their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class.
Without further order of the Court, the parties, by written agreement,
may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of August, 2017.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?