Durant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 126

ORDER FINALLY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT granting Plaintiff's 113 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award; Plaintiff's 122 MOTION for Judgment & Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (MW)

1

The Honorable Richard A. Jones

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

8 BRETT DURANT, On Behalf of Himself

No.: 2-15-CV-01710-RAJ

and all other similarly situated,
9

CLASS ACTION
ORDER FINALLY APPROVING
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
FINAL JUDGMENT
[PROPOSED]

Plaintiff,
10

v.
11

STATE FARM MUTUAL
12 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY, a foreign automobile
13 insurance company,

Defendant.

14
15
16

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award (Dkt. # 113) and Plaintiff’s Unopposed

17
18

Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Dkt. # 122) of the above captioned matter (the

19 “Litigation”) between Plaintiff Brett Durant (“Plaintiff” or “Durant”) and Defendant State
20 Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant” or State Farm”); and the Court
21

having duly considered the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS

22
23
24

both Motions, and finds and orders as follows:
1.

All terms and phrases in this Final Judgment not otherwise defined herein shall

25 have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Release
26

(Ex. A, Firkins Decl., Dkt. #106) (the “Settlement Agreement”).

27
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-1-

1
2

2.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties and all members of the

Settlement Class and subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement Agreement,

3

including all exhibits thereto.
4
5

3.

The Court adopts the class definition agreed upon for the purposes of the

6 proposed settlement, and confirms certification, for purposes of settlement only, of the
7

Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), defined as “all State

8

Farm insureds in the state of Washington who, from April 19, 2008 to June 15, 2018, had a
9
10 Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim for medical or hospital benefits denied, terminated or
11 limited by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) on the grounds
12

that they had reached Maximum Medical Improvement, using an Explanation of Review

13

form referencing Reason Codes SF546, SF 536 or SF537. ” (See Preliminary Approval Order
14
15

Dkt. # 110, ¶ 2).

16

4.

The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to

17 the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. #110) and consisting
18

of first-class U.S. mail sent directly to members of the Settlement Class, and a settlement
19
20

website, together with toll free telephone line has been successful and was (1) the best notice

21 practicable under the circumstances, (2) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated,
22 under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Litigation
23

and their rights to object to and/or exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement and

24
25

to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (3) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate,

26 and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled to receive notice; and (4) fulfilled all
27
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-2-

1 applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause,
2

and the rules of the Court.

3

5.

No member of the Settlement Class validly objected to any of the terms of the

4
5 Settlement Agreement.

The following seven members of the Settlement Class timely

6 requested exclusion from the Settlement: Christie Benevich; Karen Curtis; Michele Johnson;
7

Matthew Klein; Richard Milestone; Tamera Walters; and Eric Willacker (the “Opt Outs”).

8

These individuals are hereby excluded from any and all terms of the Settlement Agreement.
9
10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3), all members of the Settlement Class,
11 other than the Opt Outs, are bound by this Final Judgment and by the terms of the Settlement
12

Agreement. This Court gives final approval to the Settlement and finds that the Settlement

13

Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the members of the
14
15

Settlement Class. The consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes

16 fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released
17 Parties. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to the members of the Settlement
18

Class is reasonable, and in their best interests, considering the total value of their claims
19
20

compared to the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the Litigation, and the potential

21 risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The complex legal and
22 factual posture of this case and the fact that the Settlement is the result of arms’ length
23

negotiations between the Parties support this finding. The Court finds that these facts,

24
25

combined with the lack of other indicators of collusion and the Court’s observations

26 throughout the litigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion present in the reaching of
27 the Settlement Agreement, implicit or otherwise. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-3-

1 Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). This finding is also supported by, among other
2

things, the fact that the Settlement provides monetary benefits to the Settlement Class that

3

are not disproportionate to the attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel or the
4
5 Class Representative; and the benefits provided to the Settlement Class are appropriate under
6 the circumstances of this case. The Court has specifically considered the factors relevant to
7

class settlement approval including, inter alia, the strength of the Plaintiff’s case; the risk,

8

expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of not maintaining class
9
10 action status throughout trial; the relief provided for in the settlement; the extent of discovery
11 completed and stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; and the
12

reaction of members of the Settlement Class to the proposed Settlement (including the claims

13

submitted and lack of any opt-outs or objections)—and upon consideration of such factors
14
15

finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of,

16 the Settlement Class.
17

6.

The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately

18

represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into
19
20

and implementing the Settlement Agreement.
7.

21

Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the

22 Parties and their counsel are hereby directed to implement and consummate the Settlement
23

Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby

24
25

incorporated into this Final Judgment in full and shall have the full force of an Order of this

26 Court.
27
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-4-

1
2

8.

This Court hereby dismisses the Litigation, as identified in the Settlement

Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice.

3

9.

Upon entry of this Final Judgment, Plaintiff, the members of the Settlement

4
5 Class, and each of their respective heirs, assigns, successors, agents, attorneys, executors
6 and representatives (the “Releasing Parties”) shall be deemed to have, and by operation of
7

the Final Judgment, shall have, fully, finally, and irrevocably released State Farm and all of

8

its past or present directors, officers, employees, agents, insurers, shareholders, members,
9
10 attorneys, advisors, consultants, representatives, partners, affiliates, related companies,
11 parents, subsidiaries (whether or not wholly owned), predecessors, successors, and assigns
12

(collectively, the “Released Parties”), from any and all liabilities, claims, causes of action,

13

damages (whether actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive of any other type), penalties,
14
15

costs, attorneys’ fees, losses or demands, whether known or unknown, existing or suspected

16 or unsuspected, that were or could have been asserted against State Farm based on the factual
17 allegations contained in the Complaint filed in the Action, or that relate to or arise out of
18

State Farm’s denial, termination, or limitation of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) medical
19
20
21

or hospital benefits based on Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI).
10.

Upon the entry of this Final Judgment, the above releases of claims and the

22 Settlement Agreement will be binding on, and will have res judicata and preclusive effect
23

in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of

24
25
26

Plaintiff and all other members of the Settlement Class and Releasing Parties.
11.

The Court adjudges that the payment of $4,625,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and

27 litigation expenses in the amount of $48,239.00 (the “Fee Award”) is fair and reasonable for
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-5-

1 the following reasons and those stated in Court. In assessing the requested attorneys’ fees,
2

the Court has considered the relief achieved for the Settlement Class, the time and effort

3

devoted by Class Counsel as demonstrated by their sworn declaration, and the complexity
4
5 of the legal and factual issues involved. The Court finds that the Fee Award to Class Counsel
6 identified above is fair and reasonable under both a common fund approach and a lodestar
7

approach. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding

8

in this Circuit, a 25% fee is the accepted “benchmark” in common fund cases); Kerr v. Screen
9
10 Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (lodestar approach).
11
12

12.

The Court further adjudges that the payment of an incentive award in the

amount of $10,000.00 (the “Incentive Award”) to Mr. Durant to compensate him for his

13

efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified
14
15

under the circumstances of this case. See Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d

16 1157 (9th Cir. 2013). Such payment shall be made pursuant to and in the manner provided
17 by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
18

13.

The Court hereby approves payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of the

19
20

administrative expenses of Rust Consulting, which are currently estimated to amount to

21 $46,970.00.
22
23

14.

Except as otherwise set forth in this Order and the Settlement Agreement, the

Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

24
25

15.

The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are hereby permitted to

26 agree to and to adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Settlement
27 Agreement and its implementing documents (including all exhibits to the Settlement
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-6-

1 Agreement) so long as they are consistent in all material respects with this Final Judgment
2

and do not limit the rights of the Settlement Class.

3

16.

Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment for purposes of appeal,

4
5 this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiff, Defendants,
6 the Settlement Class, and the Releasing Parties as to all matters relating to administration,
7

consummation, enforcement and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Final

8

Judgment, and for any other necessary purpose.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2019.

13

A

14
15

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMRH:4828-2468-2135.1

-7-