Martin v. Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP ( 2022 )

1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BRIAN MARTIN, No. 2:19-cv-00514-RAJ 10 Plaintiff, 11 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 12 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 13 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION, LP, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for 18 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court has considered the motion 19 together with the supporting declaration and exhibits and the record on file with the 20 Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion and preliminarily 21 22 approves the parties’ class-wide settlement. 23 A. Standard of Review 24 The Court must satisfy itself that the proposed class-wide settlement is fair, 25 adequate, and reasonable to the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); see also Hanlon v. Chrysler 26 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 1 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). In conducting such analysis, federal courts 2 consider the following factors: 3 [T]he strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, 4 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount 5 offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and 6 the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the 7 reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. 8 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (citing Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 9 (9th Cir. 1993)). The courts also consider whether the settlement was the product of 10 11 arms’ length negotiations and whether there is any evidence of collusion among the 12 parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 13 B. The Court Preliminarily Approves the Proposed Settlement as Fair 14 and Reasonable. 15 Based on the Court’s review of the instant motion and the parties’ Settlement 16 Agreement (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Adam J. Berger) together with its 17 18 knowledge of the claims and defenses at issue in the case and the proceedings to date, 19 the Court concludes that the terms of the parties’ proposed settlement appear fair, 20 reasonable, and adequate, were the product of arms’ length negotiations, and do not 21 evince any collusion between the parties. To that end, the Court ORDERS as follows: 22 23 1. The Court approves the form and content of the parties’ proposed notice 24 to the Class Members (“Notice”) that is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of 25 Adam J. Berger accompanying Plaintiff’s motion. 26 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 1 2. The Court approves appointment of ILYM Group as Settlement 2 Administrator and preliminarily approves payment of their fees and costs, not to exceed 3 $15,000, from the Gross Settlement Fund created by the Settlement. 4 3. The Court concludes that the manner of giving notice satisfies Rule 23 5 6 and the requirements of due process and, consistent with the terms of the parties’ 7 Settlement Agreement, the Court directs the Settlement Administrator to mail a copy 8 of the Notice to each Class Member no later than thirty (30) calendar days following 9 the date of this Order. 10 11 4. The Court finds and concludes that no second opt-out period is necessary 12 for Class Members in this case. Therefore, all highlighted portions of the Notice that 13 reference such opt-out period should be deleted prior to mailing. 14 5. On July 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will conduct a hearing (“Final 15 16 Fairness Hearing”) to determine whether to approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate, which, if so approved, will result in a dismissal and final judgment. The 18 Final Fairness Hearing may, without further notice to the Class, be continued or 19 adjourned by order of this Court. 20 21 6. The Court approves notifying the Class of Class Counsel’s request for 22 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $397,500, in attorneys’ fees plus actual litigation 23 costs of up to $45,000, subject to final approval at the Final Fairness Hearing. 24 7. Subject to final approval at the Final Fairness Hearing, the Court 25 26 approves the proposed incentive payment of $20,000 to the Class Representative Brian [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 1 Martin in recognition of his time and efforts in this case, his service to the Class, and 2 his grant of a general release to Defendant, and directs that the Class be notified of this 3 award. 4 8. Class Members may submit a written objection to any of the terms of the 5 6 proposed settlement, by following the instructions as set forth in the Notice. Only Class 7 Members who file a timely, written objection to the settlement will be permitted to 8 appeal or seek review of this Court’s decision approving or rejecting the settlement. 9 9. The Court directs Class Counsel to submit a motion for final approval of 10 11 the settlement, along with a proposed order approving the settlement, Class Counsel’s 12 fees and costs, and incentive payment to the Class Representative no later than seven 13 (7) calendar days prior to the date of the Final Fairness Hearing. Such papers shall also 14 inform the Court whether the mailing to Class Members was completed in accordance 15 16 with the requirements of this Order, and provide information concerning any objections 17 received as a result of such mailing. 18 10. In the event the parties’ proposed settlement does not become effective 19 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement or is not finally approved by 20 21 this Court, the Court shall vacate this order and reinstate all claims and defenses. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2022. 23 A 24 25 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 26 United States District Judge [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING