(PC) Mays v. County of Sacramento

1 || Aaron J. Fischer (SBN 247391) Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (SBN 220934) Aaron.Fischer @ disabilityrightsca.org jvs @cooley.com || Anne Hadreas (SBN 253377) Mark A. Zambarda (SBN 314808) anne.hadreas @ disabilityrightsca.org [email protected] || DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA Addison M. Litton (SBN 305374) 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 [email protected] ||Oakland, CA 94612 COOLEY LLP Telephone: (510) 267-1200 3175 Hanover Street || Fax: (510) 267-1201 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Donald Specter (SBN 83925) Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 dspecter @ prisonlaw.com || Margot Mendelson (SBN 268583) Attorneys for Plaintiffs mmendelson @ prisonlaw.com || Sophie Hart (SBN 321663) sophieh @ prisonlaw.coom || PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street || Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 || Fax: (510) 280-2704 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SACRAMENTO DIVISION LORENZO MAYS, RICKY ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KIN || RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, ) ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and _) CLASS ACTION | CODY GARLAND, on behalf of themselves ) 50 and all others similarly situated, Findings and Recommendations Plaintiffs, ) Recommending Final Approval of Class 21 Action Settlement be Adopted v. 22 ) Date: December 6, 2019 33 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Time: 11:00 a.m.

Defendant. ) Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman 24 ) ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 1 On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Sacramento (“Defendant”) filed || Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The matter came before the Court for || a hearing on December 6, 2019. Having considered the briefing in support of the motion, responses || from class members, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the || motion.

6 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “claims, issues, or defenses of a || certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” The Ninth Circuit has instructed || district courts to consider and balance multiple factors when assessing whether a settlement is “fair, || adequate, and free from collusion” under Rule 23(e). See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, || 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). These factors include: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 12 further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 13 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 4 participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

15 || Id. at 1026. “This list is not exclusive and different factors may predominate in different factual || contexts.” Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993).

17 2. The Court finds that consideration of the factors favors settlement, and that the || settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

19 a. Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Expense, and Complexity of Further || Litigation: The Plaintiffs’ case is strong, as shown by the evidence that has been submitted and the || serious ongoing settlement discussions that began even before the complaint was filed. However, || Plaintiffs face substantial burdens in demonstrating a current and ongoing violation of individuals’ || constitutional rights on a system-wide basis. Proceeding through pre-trial motions, trial, and || possible appeal would impose risks, costs, and a substantial delay in the implementation of any || remedy in this matter.

26 b. Risk of Maintaining a Class Action Status Through Trial: Plaintiffs face little || or no risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial. The Court approved the parties’ |] joint application for class action status on December 28, 2018, ECF No. 49, and it is unlikely that || Defendant would contest class certification if the Court rejects the proposed Consent Decree. See || Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (allowing court to revisit certification before final judgment).

4 c. Extent of Discovery Taken in the Case: Settlement discussions began even || before the filing of this case, and were informed by considerable information-sharing as well as the || investigation conducted through class counsel Disability Rights California’s statutory access || authority. The parties also engaged in targeted discovery after the case was filed. Throughout, || Plaintiffs’ counsel had access to the jails, personnel who worked there, and people incarcerated || there. The settlement also was informed by the opinions of five neutral experts who had access to || the jails.

11 d. Experience and Views of Counsel: Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience || in prisoners’ nights litigation and complex class action litigation and believe that the settlement here || is in the best interest of all plaintiffs. Defendant is represented by counsel who similarly is || experienced and knowledgeable in this type of litigation. The Court has already found that || “experienced and knowledgeable counsel . . . have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.”

16 |} ECF No. 88 at 2.

17 e. Reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement: The reaction of class || members to the settlement further supports final approval. Defendant complied with the Court’s || order regarding the provision of notice to the class. ECF No. 91. Class members were afforded an || opportunity to comment or object to the settlement, and this Court held a hearing on the matter.

21 || Though approximately 3,700 individuals are incarcerated at Defendant’s jails, the Court received || only four letters about the settlement, including one from a non-class member. See ECF Nos. 96-98, || 100. The letters detailed individual experiences with the deficiencies for which Plaintiffs seek a || remedy in this case; these letters weigh in favor of approving the Consent Decree.

25 The Court is satisfied that the concerns in the comments are adequately addressed by || the Consent Decree. The Court also notes that the settlement will not bar individual damage claims || byclass members. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he general rule is || that a class action suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent || individual damage claims by class members, even if based on the same events.”). Overall, the || reaction to the Consent Decree therefore weighs in favor of approval.

3 f. Whether the Settlement Appears Non-Collusive: As this Court has previously || found, “the proposed settlement is the product of arms-length, serious, informed, non-collusive, || negotiations.” Doc No. 88 at 2. The parties have presented no reason for the Court to reconsider || this previous finding. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval.

7 3. The Court further finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of the Prison || Litigation Reform Act at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). In so doing, the Court finds that the relief contained || therein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal || constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to |} accomplish those objectives.

12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Joint Motion for Final Approval of || the Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 102) be GRANTED. The undersigned finds that the Consent || Decree should be approved and adopted as the Order of the Court, the parties should be ordered to |} comply with all its terms, and the Defendant should be ordered to implement the Remedial Plan and || accompanying policies pursuant to the schedule set forth therein.

17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within ten days after being || served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the || court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed || and served within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

24 || Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25 || //// || //// | //// |) //// 1 The parties are advised that if they do not object to these recommendations, each counsel || shall file a statement of non-opposition or statement of no objections, to shorten the objection period || and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the district court.

4 || Dated: December 9, 2019 Frese Arn 6 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /mays208 1 fair