1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS Case No. 18-cv-02895-NC 11 COALITION, et al., ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. Re: Dkt. No. 70 14 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 15 UNIVERSITY, 16 Defendant.

17 The parties filed a joint stipulation indicating that they have resolved all outstanding 18 issues in this case and have executed a formal written agreement memorializing a 19 settlement. Dkt. No. 70. The court ordered additional briefing on the issue of possible 20 prejudice to the absent putative class members. Dkt. No. 71. Specifically, the Court asked 21 the parties to provide further information on: (1) “possible reliance on the filing of the 22 action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances”; 23 (2) “lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly 24 approaching statute of limitations”; and (3) “any settlement or concession of class interests 25 made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests.” Diaz v. 26 Trust Territory of Pac. Islands,

, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 The parties filed this supplemental briefing. Dkt. Nos. 72, 73. The Court is 1 prejudice to absent putative class members. The parties have filed publicly the full 2 settlement agreement which the Court has reviewed (it is also available to the public on 3 Disability Rights Advocates’ website). Dkt. No. 73, Ex. 1.1 The parties additionally 4 disclosed the amount paid in attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Court finds this 5 amount reasonable for the services rendered.

at 7–8. The Court notes that the 6 settlement was facilitated by JAMS Mediator Cathy Yanni and that Ms. Yanni assisted the 7 parties through multiple in-person sessions as well as joint and separate phone calls. Dkt. 8 No. 70 at 1. The assistance of a mediator suggests that the settlement was not the product 9 of collusion. Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01055-LJO,

, 10 at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012). Finally, the Court is satisfied that the publicity related to 11 this case was limited and accurately communicated to its audience the terms of the 12 settlement so as to minimize possible prejudice to absent putative class members. Dkt. No. 13 73, Ex. 3–7. 14 The Court APPROVES the settlement under the “lighter form” of Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 23(e) approval warranted by class claims prior to certification in this 16 Circuit. Richards v. Safeway, Inc.

, Case No. 13-cv-4317-JD at *2 (N.D. 17 Cal. Jan. 12, 2015). The settlement agreement resolves all individual claims asserted by 18 the seven named Plaintiffs and resolves all issues relating to the payment of attorneys’ fees 19 and costs. The settlement agreement does not purport to release the claims of the unnamed 20 members of the putative class, and accordingly it does not contemplate certification of a 21 settlement class. 22 The action is hereby DISMISSED. This dismissal is with prejudice solely with 23 respect to the named plaintiffs: Mental Health & Wellness Coalition, Erik X., Tina Y., 24 Jacob Z., Harrison Fowler, Rose A., and Sofia B. With respect to all unnamed members of 25 the putative class, dismissal is without prejudice. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction 26 1 One footnote of the settlement agreement was redacted to protect sensitive personal 27 information. The Court ordered the parties to file an administrative motion to seal this 1 || over the parties for purposes of enforcing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement for 2 || two years. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to terminate Case No. 18-cv-02895. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 29, 2019 h-_————— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13

14

15

16

© 17

1g zZ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28