Carlson v. Home Depot USA Inc

1 The Honorable Tana Lin

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CHRIS CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, No. 2:20-cv-01150 MJP 10 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS v. ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 12 DISMISSING ACTION WITH HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign PREJUDICE AND FINAL JUDGMENT corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign corporation, [CLERK’S ACTION REQUIRED] Defendants.

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court has considered all papers submitted by the parties in connection with the proposed settlement, including the instant motion, the supporting declarations of Lluvia Islas and Adam J. Berger, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Settlement Class Certification, Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. #135) (“Preliminary Approval Motion”), the Declaration of Adam J. Berger in support of preliminary approval (Dkt. #136) and exhibits attached thereto, and the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Hanley in support of final approval (Dkt.

26 #145) and exhibits attached thereto. In addition to the parties’ materials, the Court held a hearing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL on May 30, 2023. The Court, having heard all persons properly appearing and requesting to be heard, having considered the papers submitted in support of the proposed Settlement and the oral presentations of counsel, having considered all applicable law, and having considered any objections made properly to the proposed Settlement, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and ORDERS as follows: 8 1. The Court’s prior order of February 16, 2023 granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement (Dkt. #137) (“Preliminary Approval Order”) and the parties’ Settlement Agreement, including the terms defined therein and all exhibits thereto, are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The Court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties, including all members of the Settlement Class who have not opted out of the matter.

3. The Court approves the Settlement, finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to members of the Settlement Class and consistent and in compliance with all requirements of Washington and federal law for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Motion (Dkt. #137) and in Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval.

4. The Court finds that the Notices mailed and emailed to members of the Settlement Class at their last known addresses provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances and that the Notice was distributed in accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. The Notices given to the Settlement Class Members fully complied with Rule 23, were the best notices practicable, were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise members of the Settlement Class of their rights with respect to [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL the settlement, and satisfied all applicable requirements of constitutional due process and any other applicable requirements under Washington and federal law.

5. No objections to the terms of the Settlement have been communicated to the Third Party Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, or filed with the Court.

6. The Court finds that Plaintiff Chris Carlson and Class Counsel Schroeter Goldmark & Bender adequately represented the Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement.

9 7. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is fair and reasonable, and hereby approves the request for an attorneys’ fee award of 20% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $1,160,000, plus litigation costs of $75,017.54.

The requested award is below the benchmark for percentage awards in common fund cases.

This case was actively litigated including through a successful motion for litigation class certification. Counsel has litigated this case on a contingent-fee basis, meaning they will not have been paid for almost three years of litigation. The settlement results in a substantial recovery for the Settlement Class. See In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“The overall result and benefit to the class from the litigation is the most critical factor in granting a fee award.”). Such considerations support a percentage award of 20%.

8. The Court approves incentive payments from the Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $10,000 to the named Plaintiff and $250 each to the 16 class members who were deposed by defense counsel for their time and service on behalf of the Settlement Class.

25 9. The Court approves payment in the amount of $22,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund to ILYM Group for its fees and costs as Settlement Administrator. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 1 10. The parties are hereby directed to proceed with the settlement payment procedures specified under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

11. The Settlement Agreement is binding on all Settlement Class Members, as defined in the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Chris Carlson and the Class Members are bound by the Release of Claims set forth in Paragraphs 25 through 27 of the Settlement Agreement, and are enjoined from maintaining, prosecuting, commencing, or pursuing any claim released under the Settlement Agreement, and are deemed to have released and discharged the Defendants and Released Parties from any such claims.

10 12. The Court reserves jurisdiction over the parties as to all matters relating to the administration, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, and for any other necessary purposes.

13. Neither this Final Order and Judgment nor any aspect of this settlement is to be offered as evidence of, or construed or deemed as an admission of, liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Defendants or their employees or agents.

17 14. The parties are authorized, without further approval from the Court, to mutually agree to and adopt any technical or process amendments or modifications to the Settlement Agreement provided such changes are: (i) consistent with this Order; (ii) consistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) do not limit any substantive rights of the Settlement Class.

23 15. In the event the Settlement does not become effective, this Order shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered in connection therewith shall be vacated and rendered null and void.

16. This case, including all individual and class claims presented thereby, is [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party to bear his, her, or its own fees and costs, except as set forth herein.

17. The Court hereby enters Judgment approving the terms of the Settlement.

This Order shall constitute a final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2023.

8 A Tana Lin 10 United States District Judge Presented by: SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER s/ Adam J. Berger Adam J. Berger, WSBA #20714 Elizabeth Hanley, WSBA #38233 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 622-8000 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Approved as to form; approved for entry by: OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ Laurence A. Shapero Laurence A. Shapero, WSBA #31301 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: [email protected] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ Evan R. Moses Evan R. Moses, CA Bar #198099 (admitted pro hac vice) South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 438-5851 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL