Hart et al v. CF Arcis VII LLC et al
Filing
54
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT granting Plaintiffs Clyde Stephen Lewis, James Presti, Michael Ralls' 44 motion for an award of fees and 48 motion for final approval of classaction settlement. The Court hereby enters this Final Judgmen t, which constitutes a final adjudication on the merits of all claims of the SettlementClass. The Settlement Class is certified, the Settlement Agreement is finally approved, and Class Counsel are awarded $59,000 in fees and costs. The Settleme nt requires Arcis to pay a $240,000 Distribution Amount into a non-reversionary fund. From this amount, the Parties will make Immediate Refunds to eight Settlement Class Members totaling $181,000. Case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) Modified on 2/7/2020: cc to interested party Robert C Feldmann via USPS (PM).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
9
10
11
LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEPHEN
LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and MICHAEL
RALLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
v.
CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC AT
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, and d/b/a
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, CF
ARCIS IV HOLDINGS, LLC, ARCIS
EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, BLAKE S.
WALKER, individually and on behalf of the
marital community of BLAKE S. WALKER
and JANE DOE WALKER, and
BRIGHTSTAR GOLF SNOQUALMIE, LLC,
Defendants.
21
22
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class
23
action settlement and Class Counsel’s motion for an award of fees and costs. The Court has
24
considered all papers filed and proceedings in this matter and is fully informed regarding the
25
facts surrounding the proposed Settlement. Based upon this information, the Court approves the
26
proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court hereby enters this Final
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 1
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
Judgment, which constitutes a final adjudication on the merits of all claims of the Settlement
2
Class. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED, the Settlement Class is
3
certified, the Settlement Agreement is finally approved, and Class Counsel are awarded
4
$59,000 in fees and costs.
5
A.
On September 9, 2019, this Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
6
class action settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants CF Arcis VII LLC dba The Club at
7
Snoqualmie Ridge, CF Arcis IV Holdings, LLC, and Arcis Equity Partners, LLC (collectively,
8
“Arcis”). See Dkt. 43. The Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class’s claims against
9
Arcis in exchange for Arcis’s agreement to provide an agreed number of immediate refunds
10
upon approval, to provide a minimum number of refunds for three years following January 1,
11
2020, and to provide future refunds as set forth in the Agreement.
12
B.
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have filed motions, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
13
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order (a) finally approving the Agreement, which will
14
dismiss this Action with prejudice, and (b) granting Class Counsel’s request for an award of
15
fees and costs.
16
C.
The Court has reviewed and considered all papers filed in support of and in
17
opposition to the Settlement, and all exhibits thereto. On February 7, 2020, the Court also held
18
a hearing, after notice to the Settlement Class was sent, at which time the Parties and all
19
interested persons were heard in support of and in opposition to the Settlement (“Settlement
20
Hearing”). The Court has engaged in these actions in order to confirm that the Settlement is
21
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether the Final Approval Order should be
22
entered in this Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.
23
D.
Upon consideration of the above, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair,
24
adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class, within the authority of the Parties, and the
25
result of extensive arm’s-length negotiations.
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 2
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
2
3
1.
The definitions and provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Release of
Claims (the “Agreement”) are incorporated in this Order as though fully set forth herein.
2.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Agreement with
4
respect to and over all parties to the Agreement, including Plaintiffs and all members of the
5
Settlement Class.
6
3.
The Court approves the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in all respects,
7
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, within the authority of the parties, and
8
the result of extensive arm’s length negotiations with the guidance of an experienced mediator.
9
4.
This Court confirms that the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the
10
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.23, as preliminarily found in the Court’s Order Granting
11
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, and
12
Approving Form and Manner of Notice (“Preliminary Approval Order”). Accordingly, this
13
Court makes final the portion of its Preliminary Approval Order finding the requirements of
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to be satisfied for settlement purposes.
15
5.
Two members of the Settlement Class—John Yae, and Ray and Shannon
16
Coleman—have timely requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class and the Settlement.
17
Accordingly, this Order shall not bind or affect these Settlement Class Members.
18
6.
There was one timely objection to the Settlement by Robert C. Feldmann, which
19
after due consideration of all points made, the Court has overruled. Mr. Feldmann’s objection
20
specifically indicated that “[i]f this settlement goes forward in this form, I have no choice but to
21
request that I be excluded from the class.” Dkt. #47 at 2. The Court interprets this as a timely
22
request to be excluded from the Settlement Class and Settlement and, accordingly, this Order
23
shall not bind or affect Robert C. Feldmann.
24
7.
Neither this Final Judgment nor the Agreement is an admission or concession by
25
Arcis of the validity of any claims or of any liability or wrongdoing or of any violation of law.
26
This Final Judgment and the Agreement do not constitute a concession and shall not be used as
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 3
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
an admission or indication of any wrongdoing, fault, or omission by Arcis or any other person
2
in connection with any transaction, event, or occurrence, and neither this Final Judgment nor
3
the Agreement nor any related documents in this proceeding, nor any reports or accounts
4
thereof, shall be offered or received in evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative action
5
or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce this
6
Final Judgment, the Agreement, and all releases given thereunder, or to establish the
7
affirmative defenses of res judicata or collateral estoppel barring the pursuit of claims released
8
in the Agreement.
9
8.
This Court hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims of members of the
10
Settlement Class that have been, or could have been, alleged in this action, including the claim
11
that Arcis unlawfully introduced non-refundable memberships and materially limited the
12
frequency with which members with refundable memberships could receive refunds without
13
the required notice or membership approval, as well as any other claims arising from the 2013
14
revisions to the June 30, 2008 Membership and Operating Policies.
15
9.
Representative Plaintiffs, for themselves and as the representatives of the
16
Settlement Class, and on behalf of each Class Member who has not timely opted out, and each
17
of their respective agents, successors, heirs, assigns, and any other person who can claim by or
18
through them in any manner, fully, finally, and forever irrevocably release, relinquish, and
19
forever discharge with prejudice all Released Claims against the Released Parties.
20
10.
The Notice transmitted to Settlement Class Members fully and accurately
21
informed Settlement Class Members of all material elements of the Settlement and constituted
22
valid, sufficient, and due notice to all such members. The Notice was the best practicable under
23
the circumstances. The Notice satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
24
and the requirements of constitutional due process, and with all other applicable law. The
25
Notice was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Settlement Class
26
Members of the pendency of this action, all material elements of the Settlement, and their
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 4
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
opportunity to exclude themselves from, object to, or comment on the Settlement and appear at
2
the final fairness hearing. The Court has afforded a full opportunity to all Settlement Class
3
Members to be heard. Accordingly, the Court determines that all members of the Settlement
4
Class, except those who timely excluded themselves from the Settlement Class, are bound by
5
this Judgment and Final Order.
6
11.
The Settlement requires Arcis to pay a $240,000 Distribution Amount into a
7
non-reversionary fund. From this amount, the Parties will make Immediate Refunds to eight
8
Settlement Class Members totaling $181,000.
9
12.
The Settlement also provides prospective relief. Arcis will make a minimum of
10
four refunds per year for three years. Arcis will also pay a refund in the amount of 70% of the
11
then-current price of a refundable membership each time it collects cash from membership fees
12
(from the sale of both refundable and non-refundable memberships) equal to three times the
13
refund amounts. And once the Club has 420 or more active golf members, Arcis will increase
14
the frequency of refunds. Each time Arcis collects cash from membership fees (from the sale of
15
both refundable and non-refundable memberships) equal to 1.5 times the refund amount, Arcis
16
will pay a refund in the amount of 85% of the then-current price of a refundable membership.
17
In all cases, Arcis will protect against any artificial reduction of the refund amount by agreeing
18
to never sell refundable memberships at a price less than 150% of the then-current published
19
price for nonrefundable memberships. Finally, for seven years, Arcis shall prepare and furnish
20
to Settlement Class Members, on a semi-annual basis, statements detailing the Net Membership
21
Fees Arcis has received, and the number and amount of refunds made in the previous year.
22
Arcis shall send the statements by email, if available, or by U.S. mail to all Settlement Class
23
Members who have not yet received a refund.
24
13.
The Court finally approves this Settlement, and finds that it is in all respects fair,
25
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class Members. The Parties
26
dispute the validity of the claims in the action, and their dispute underscores not only the
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 5
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
uncertainty of the outcome, but also why the Court finds the Settlement Agreement to be fair,
2
reasonable, and adequate. Had they continued to litigate, Plaintiffs would still have needed to
3
prevail on a motion for class certification and to defeat a possible summary judgment motion
4
before even getting to trial. There, they faced the challenge of convincing a jury that Arcis
5
breached the membership and operating policies, and that Settlement Class Members suffered
6
damages from the breach. They also would have faced the challenge of surviving any appeals
7
of the Court’s class certification order and any other rulings rendered during trial. Class
8
Counsel have reviewed the Settlement Agreement and find it to be in the best interest of
9
Settlement Class Members. For all these reasons, the Court finds that the uncertainties of
10
continued litigation in both the trial and appellate courts, as well as the expense associated with
11
it, weigh in favor of Settlement approval. In making this determination, the Court has
12
considered the criteria set forth in the recently amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
13
and the factors outlined in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998), and
14
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric, 361 f.3d 566, 575-76 (9th Cir. 2004).
15
14.
Within ten (10) days after the filing of the proposed Agreement in this Court,
16
Arcis served a notice of the proposed settlement upon the appropriate state official of each
17
State in which a Settlement Class Member resides, and upon the Attorney General of the
18
United States. The Court finds that the notice provided by Arcis satisfied the requirements of
19
28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), and that more than ninety (90) days have elapsed since Arcis provided the
20
required notice, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).
21
15.
Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court retains
22
continuing jurisdiction over (a) implementation of the Agreement, the payment of the
23
Distribution Amount, and attorneys’ fees and costs contemplated by the Agreement, until each
24
and every act agreed to be performed pursuant to the Agreement has been performed; and
25
(b) all parties to this action and members of the Settlement Class for the purpose of enforcing
26
and administering the Agreement.
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 6
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
16.
The Court approves payment of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
2
$59,000. This amount shall be taken out of the Distribution Amount that is paid by Arcis. The
3
Court finds this amount to be appropriate and reasonable based on the following: (a) Class
4
Counsel achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Class by obtaining Arcis’s agreement to
5
certain refunds and changes to the method for calculating and providing refunds to Settlement
6
Class Members; (b) Class Counsel devoted substantial effort to pre-and post-filing
7
investigation, legal analysis, litigation, and mediation; (c) Class Counsel prosecuted the
8
Settlement Class’s claims on a contingent fee basis, investing significant time and
9
accumulating costs with no guarantee that they would receive compensation for their services
10
or recover their expenses; (d) Class Counsel employed their knowledge of and experience with
11
class action litigation in achieving a valuable settlement for the Settlement Class, in spite of
12
Arcis’s possible legal defenses and its experienced and capable counsel; (e) Class Counsel have
13
a contingent fee agreement with Plaintiffs, who have reviewed the Agreement and been
14
informed of Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee and cost application and have approved; (f) the
15
Notice informed Settlement Class Members of the amount and nature of Class Counsel’s fee
16
and cost request under the Agreement, Class Counsel filed and posted their Fee Application in
17
time for Settlement Class Members to make a meaningful decision whether to object to the Fee
18
Application; and (g) the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arms’
19
length and without collusion. For these reasons, the Court hereby approves Class Counsel’s Fee
20
and Cost Application.
21
17.
The Court finds that no justifiable reason exists for delaying entry of this
22
Settlement Order and Judgment, and expressly directs that this Settlement Order and Judgment
23
be entered as final and appealable and the case dismissed with prejudice.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 7
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
1
The Clerk of the Court shall enter this Final Approval Order and Judgment.
2
Dated this 7th day of February 2020.
3
4
5
6
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - 8
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01932-RSM
4820-6794-4116V.1 0110754-000001
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
TEL. 206.816.6603 FAX 206.319.5450
www.terrellmarshall.com
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?