Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle

Filing 42

ORDER (1) granting preliminary approval of settlement ; (2) granting certification of settlement class ; (3) directing notice to the class ; and (4) setting date for Fairness Hearing ; re parties' 40 Joint Motion. Final approval of the Decree ("Fairness Hearing") set for 11/1/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 16106, signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10
11
12
13

CONRAD REYNOLDSON, STUART
PIXLEY, and DAVID WHEDBEE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,

14
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE, a public entity,

Case No. : 2:15-cv-01608-BJR
CLASS ACTION
ORDER (1) GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO
THE CLASS; AND (4) SETTING DATE
FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER
The Parties have applied to the Court for an order preliminarily approving the settlement
of this action in accord with the Proposed Consent (“Decree”), which sets forth the terms and
conditions of a proposed settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice, with the Court

24

retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Decree throughout its term. Having read the papers submitted

25

and carefully considered the arguments and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,

26

the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

27

Settlement.

28
CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

On May 2, 2016, this Court granted the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Class

Certification, certifying a class for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Settlement Class
definition in the Decree is identical to that of the certified Class and therefore does not expand the
class membership or legal claims that this Court has previously certified. It is therefore
appropriate for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2). The Court finds, for purposes of
settlement only, and conditioned upon the entry of this Order and the Final Judgment and Order
Approving Settlement, that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are met by the Settlement Class: (a) joinder of all Settlement Class Members in a single
proceeding would be impracticable, if not impossible, because of their numbers and dispersion;
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) Plaintiffs’ claims are
typical of the claims of the Settlement Class that they seek to represent for purposes of settlement;
(d) Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class and will
continue to do so; (e) Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by qualified, reputable
counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting class actions, including those involving
the sort of practices alleged in the Complaint; and (f) the City acted or refused to act on grounds
that apply to the Settlement Class, so that final declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate to
the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Court hereby certifies the proposed settlement class
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and appoints named Plaintiffs and their
counsel as representatives of the Settlement Class.
2.

The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Decree. The Court finds on a

preliminary basis that the Decree is fair, adequate and reasonable to all potential Class Members.
It further appears that extensive evaluation of the merits has been conducted such that Counsel for
the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It also appears to the Court

CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 2

that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs to all Parties, as well as avoid
the delay and the risks presented by further prosecution of issues either in the current or separate
litigation proceedings which are addressed by the Decree. It further appears that the Decree has
been reached as the result of good faith, prolonged, serious, and non-collusive arms-length
negotiations, including several mediation sessions supervised by mediator Teresa A. Wakeen.
3.

The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice, attached

as Exhibit B to the Decree. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice in the manner and
form set forth in the Decree meets the requirements of due process and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e). This Notice is the best practicable under the circumstances, and
shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Parties shall submit
declarations to the Court as part of their Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement confirming compliance with the notice provisions of the Decree.
4.

A hearing on final approval of the Decree (“Fairness Hearing”) shall be held

before the Court on Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. to determine all necessary
matters concerning the Decree, including whether the proposed Decree’s terms and conditions are
fair, adequate, and reasonable, and whether the Decree should receive final approval by the Court,
as well as to rule on Class Counsel’s motion requesting an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees,
costs and expenses.
5.

Objections by Class Members may be submitted to Class Counsel no later than

forty-five (45) calendar days after notice by newspaper publication has begun. Any Settlement
Class Member may object to any aspect of the proposed Decree either on his or her own or
through an attorney hired at his or her expense. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to
object to the proposed Decree may serve on Class Counsel a written statement of objection no
later than forty-five (45) calendar days after notice by newspaper publication has begun (the

CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 3

“Objection Deadline”). Such statement should include: (a) the name, address, and, if available,
telephone number and e-mail address of the Class Member objecting and, if represented by
counsel, of his or her counsel; (b) a statement of the Class Member’s objections; and (c) a
statement of his or her membership in the Settlement Class.
6.

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed Decree may also present

objections at the Fairness Hearing.
7.

The procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the

Fairness Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the orderly
presentation of any Settlement Class Members’ objection to the Decree, in accordance with the
due process rights of all Settlement Class Members.
8.

Class Counsel shall provide copies of any objections to Defendant’s counsel

within two (2) court days of receipt. Class Counsel shall also file any objections with the Court no
less than ten (10) days before the Fairness Hearing.
9.

Pending the Fairness Hearing, all proceedings in this Action, other than

proceedings necessary to carry out and enforce the terms and conditions of the Decree and this
Order, are hereby stayed. Additionally, the Court enjoins all Settlement Class Members from
asserting or maintaining any claims to be released by the Decree until the date of the Fairness
Hearing.
10.

In accordance with the above, the Court adopts the following schedule:
a.

Within ten (10) days after entry of the Order Granting Preliminary
Approval, Notice in the form of Exhibit B to the Decree shall be mailed via
U.S. mail and/or email to all organizations identified on Exhibit C to the
Decree.

b.

Within twenty (20) days after entry of the Order Granting Preliminary

CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 4

Approval, Notice in the form of Exhibit B to the Decree shall be posted on
a case-specific website established by Class Counsel, and the City of
Seattle’s official website, and shall remain posted for four (4) consecutive
weeks.
c.

Commencing within thirty (30) days after entry of the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval, Notice in the form of Exhibit B to the proposed
Decree shall be published in the The Seattle Times in English, El Mundo in
Spanish, Seattle Chinese Post in Chinese, and Northwest Vietnamese News
in Vietnamese, for four (4) consecutive weeks.

d.

Each Class Member shall be given a full opportunity to object to the
proposed Settlement and Class Counsel’s request for an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, and to participate at the
Fairness Hearing. Any Class Member seeking to object to the proposed
Settlement may submit an objection to Class Counsel in writing, via
regular or electronic mail, or by leaving a message with their objection via
telephone, TTY and/or Video Relay Service on any toll free number
established by Class Counsel, or may appear at the Fairness Hearing to
make the objection, as set forth hereinabove.

e.

Fourteen (14) days prior to the objection deadline, Plaintiffs shall file a
Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs.
The hearing on that Motion shall be concurrent with the Fairness Hearing.

f.

The Parties shall file a Joint Motion for Final Approval and respond to
objections, if any, no later than five (5) days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
All parties shall file statements of compliance with notice requirements.

CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 5

g.

The Fairness hearing shall be held on November 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 16106 of the above-referenced Court.

10.

In the event the Court does not grant final approval of the Settlement, or for any

reason the Parties fail to obtain a Final Judgment and Order Approving Settlement as
contemplated by the Decree, or the Decree is terminated pursuant to its terms for any reason or
the Effective Date does not occur for any reason, then the Decree and all orders and findings
entered in connection with the Decree and the Settlement shall become null and void and be of no
further force and effect whatsoever, shall not be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever,
and shall not be admissible or discoverable in this or any other proceeding.
This Order shall not be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by
or against the City of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability. It shall not be deemed to be a
stipulation as to the propriety of class certification, or any admission of fact or law regarding any
request for class certification, in any other action or proceeding, whether or not involving the
same or similar claims.
Nor shall this Order be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or
against Plaintiffs or the other Settlement Class Members that their claims lack merit or that the
relief requested is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as a waiver by any Party of any
defenses or claims he, she, or it may have in the Action or in any other proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2017

A

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01608-BJR
ORDER RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - 6