Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01722/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01722-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELE GIROUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01722-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action 

settlement filed by Plaintiff Angele Giroux, individually and on behalf of the settlement class as 

defined herein. Dkt. No. 62. The parties have reached a settlement regarding Plaintiff’s claims 

and now seek the required court approval. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Angele Giroux alleges that Defendant, her current employer, experienced a largescale cybersecurity data breach. Dkt. No. 51 (“SAC”) ¶¶ 1, 10–12. As a result of the breach, 

cybercriminals accessed personal identifying information — including full names, social security 

numbers, 2015 compensation information, and payroll deduction information — for 

approximately 2,500 of Defendant’s current and former employees. Id. Defendant notified 

Plaintiff and the other putative class members of the breach in March 2016. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff 

asserts that the data breach resulted from Defendant’s failure to implement reasonable security 

measures to detect and prevent cyber-attacks. Id. ¶¶ 19–20.

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 11
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Settlement Agreement

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a private mediator, the 

parties entered into a settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 63 (“Heyrich Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4, Ex. 1 (“SA”). 

The key terms are as follows:

Class Definition: The Class includes all present and former employees of Essex Property 

Trust whose 2015 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements (W-2 Forms) were accessed by an 

unknown person without authorization by a “phishing” incident on or about March 17, 2016. SA 

¶ 1.05.

Settlement Benefits: Defendant will purchase an additional1three years of AllClear credit 

monitoring and identity protection coverage for all class members. SA ¶ 3.13. Defendant will 

also establish a gross settlement fund consisting of $350,000. SA ¶ 1.33. Each class member will 

receive a pro rata share from the settlement fund. SA ¶ 3.01. The parties have estimated that 

individual class members’ recovery, without including the value of identity theft protection for an 

additional three years, will be approximately $70. Dkt. No. 62 at 12. The gross settlement fund 

includes Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, settlement administration fees, and any 

additional incentive award to Plaintiff as class representative. SA ¶ 1.33. 

Release: The class will release Defendant from all claims against Defendant that arise out 

of the facts alleged in the complaint and the claims asserted by Plaintiff. SA ¶ 4.02–4.03; Dkt. No. 

62 at 6.

Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will send class notices via email and

U.S. mail to each member of the class, using a class list provided by Defendant. SA ¶¶ 2.04–2.05; 

Dkt. No. 62 at 6–7. The notice will include: the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement 

terms, instructions on how to object to and opt out of the settlement, including relevant deadlines,

and the released claims. Dkt. No. 63, Ex. A; Dkt. No. 67, Ex. A.

Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative class member who does not 

wish to participate in the settlement must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion to the 

 

1 Defendant previously purchased two years of credit monitoring for all class members in March, 

2016. SA ¶ 3.12.

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 11
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

settlement administrator within 45 days of the mailing of the class notice. SA ¶ 2.08; see also Dkt. 

No. 63, Ex. A ¶¶ 12–15. In the event that twenty or more class members choose to opt out, 

Defendant will have the option to reject the settlement agreement. SA ¶ 2.10.

Incentive Award: The named Plaintiff will apply for an incentive award of no more than 

$5,000. SA ¶¶ 2.20–2.23.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Plaintiff will file an application for attorneys’ fees not to 

exceed $150,000. SA ¶¶ 2.18–2.19; Dkt. No. 62 at 7.

II. PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION

The Court first considers whether provisional class certification is appropriate because it is 

a prerequisite to preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that class 

certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. 

Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350–351 (2011). Class certification is a two-step process. First, a plaintiff 

must establish that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is met: numerosity, commonality, 

typicality, and adequacy of representation. Id. at 349. Second, he must establish that at least one 

of the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met. Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to certify a 

class under Rule 23(b)(3), he must show that “questions of law or fact common to class members 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is 

superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

B. Analysis

To determine whether provisional certification is appropriate, the Court considers whether 

the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been met. As discussed in more detail 

below, the Court finds those requirements have been met in this case.

i. Rule 23(a) Certification

a. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the putative class be “so numerous that joinder of all members 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 3 of 11
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Court finds that numerosity is satisfied here 

because joinder of the estimated 2,416 Class Members would be impracticable. See Dkt. No. 62 at 

14; SA ¶ 1.05.

b. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). A contention is sufficiently common where “it is capable of classwide 

resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is 

central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S at 350. 

Commonality exists where “the circumstances of each particular class member vary but retain a 

common core of factual or legal issues with the rest of the class.” Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 

975, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2008). “What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common 

‘questions’ ― even in droves — but rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate 

common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Dukes, 564 U.S at 350. Even a 

single common question is sufficient to meet this requirement. Id. at 359.

Common questions of law and fact in this action include: whether Defendant had a legal 

duty to use reasonable security measures to protect class members’ personal information; whether 

Defendant breached its legal duty by failing to protect class members’ personal information; 

whether Defendant acted reasonably in securing class members’ personal information; whether 

Defendant failed to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of 

class members’ personal information; whether Defendant disclosed class members’ personal 

information without consent; and, whether Defendant’s conduct was willful or with reckless 

disregard for the security of class members’ personal information. See SAC ¶ 37; Dkt. No 62 at 

14–15. Accordingly, the Court finds that the commonality requirement is met in this case.

c. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical 

of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “The test of typicality is whether 

other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is 

not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 11
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). That said, under the “permissive standards” of Rule 23(a)(3), 

the claims “need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 

(9th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff’s claims are both factually and legally similar to those of the putative class 

because Defendant’s actions allegedly resulted in the security breach affecting Plaintiff and all 

class members. SAC ¶¶ 24–37. Plaintiff has not alleged any individual claims. This is sufficient 

to satisfy the typicality requirement.

d. Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court must address two legal questions: 

(1) whether the named Plaintiff and his counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class 

members, and (2) whether the named Plaintiff and his counsel will prosecute the action vigorously 

on behalf of the class. See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000). 

This inquiry “tend[s] to merge” with the commonality and typicality criteria. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. 

v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158 n.13 (1982). In part, these requirements determine whether “the 

named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class 

members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Id.

The Court is unaware of any actual conflicts of interest in this matter and no evidence in 

the record suggests that either Plaintiff or proposed class counsel have a conflict with other class 

members. Dkt. No. 62 at 16; Heyrich Decl. ¶¶ 7–14. Plaintiff’s counsel has been appointed class 

counsel in numerous federal and state class actions. Heyrich Decl. 63 ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 64 ¶ 3. The 

Court finds that proposed class counsel and Plaintiff have prosecuted this action vigorously on 

behalf of the class to date, and will continue to do so. The adequacy of representation requirement 

is therefore satisfied.

ii. Rule 23(b)(3) Certification

To certify a class, Plaintiff must also satisfy the two requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). First, 

“questions of law or fact common to class members [must] predominate over any questions 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 5 of 11
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

affecting only individual members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). And second, “a class action [must 

be] superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Id. 

The Court finds that both are met in this case.

a. Predominance

“The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to 

warrant adjudication by representation.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 

(2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has defined an individual question 

as “one where members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member 

to member . . . .” Id. A common question, on the other hand, “is one where the same evidence 

will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing [or] the issue is susceptible to 

generalized, class-wide proof.” Id.

Here, the Court finds for purposes of settlement that the common questions raised by 

Plaintiff’s claims predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the proposed 

class. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant treated all class members’ personal information negligently, 

and breached its implied duty of good faith as to all class members through the same set of actions 

and decisions. See SAC ¶¶ 38–58. Because, according to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant’s 

negligence and breach were uniform as to all class members, the Court finds the predominance 

requirement is satisfied for purposes of provisional class certification.

b. Superiority

The superiority requirement tests whether “a class action is superior to other available 

methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The 

Court considers four non-exclusive factors: (1) the interest of each class member in individually 

controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (2) the extent and nature of any 

litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against the class; (3) the 

desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (4) the 

difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Id.

Here, because common legal and factual questions predominate over individual ones, and 

taking into account the large size of the proposed class, the Court finds that the judicial economy 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 6 of 11
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

achieved through common adjudication renders class action a superior method for adjudicating the 

claims of the proposed class.

iii. Class Representative and Class Counsel

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff meets the commonality, typicality, and adequacy 

requirements of Rule 23(a), the Court appoints her as class representative. When a court certifies 

a class, it must also appoint class counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B). Factors that courts should 

consider when making that decision include:

(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential 

claims in the action;

(ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex 

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; 

(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and 

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). 

In light of Plaintiff’s counsel’s extensive experience litigating class actions in federal 

court, Heyrich Decl. ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 64 ¶ 3, and their diligence in prosecuting this action to date, 

the Court appoints Stutheit Kalin, LLC and HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP as class counsel.

III. PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a 

certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(3). “The 

purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair 

settlements affecting their rights.” In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, before a district court approves a class action settlement, it must conclude that the 

settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 

667, 674–75 (9th Cir. 2008).

Where the parties reach a class action settlement prior to class certification, district courts 

apply “a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be required 

under Rule 23(e).” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 7 of 11
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In those situations, courts “must be particularly vigilant not only for explicit collusion, but also for 

more subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interests and that of 

certain class members to infect the negotiations.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 

F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011).

Courts may preliminarily approve a settlement and direct notice to the class if the proposed 

settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has 

no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not grant improper preferential treatment to class representatives 

or other segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. See In re 

Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Courts lack the 

authority, however, to “delete, modify or substitute certain provisions. The settlement must stand 

or fall in its entirety.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

B. Analysis

i. Settlement Process

The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the parties settled the action. 

“An initial presumption of fairness is usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class 

counsel after arm’s-length bargaining.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. 08-cv-5198, 2011 WL 

1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011).

Here, class counsel believes, based on significant formal discovery, that the settlement is 

fair, adequate, and reasonable. Heyrich Decl. ¶¶ 4–6; Dkt. No. 64 ¶ 9. The Court consequently 

finds that this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

ii. Preferential Treatment

The Court next considers whether the settlement agreement provides preferential treatment 

to any class member. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts must be “particularly 

vigilant” for signs that counsel have allowed the “self-interests” of “certain class members to 

infect negotiations.” In re Bluetooth., 654 F.3d at 947. For that reason, courts in this district have 

consistently stated that preliminary approval of a class action settlement is inappropriate where the 

proposed agreement “improperly grant[s] preferential treatment to class representatives.” 

Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079.

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 8 of 11
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Although the Settlement Agreement authorizes Plaintiff to seek an incentive award of no 

more than $5,000 for her role as named plaintiff in this lawsuit, see SA ¶¶ 2.20–2.23, the Court 

will ultimately determine whether she is entitled to such an award and the reasonableness of the 

amount requested. Incentive awards “are intended to compensate class representatives for work 

done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the 

action.” Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff must 

provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to “evaluate [the named plaintiff’s] award[ ] 

individually, using relevant factors includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the 

interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, . . . [and] the 

amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . .” Stanton v. Boeing 

Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will 

consider the evidence presented at the final fairness hearing and evaluate the reasonableness of 

any incentive award request. Nevertheless, because incentive awards are not per se unreasonable, 

the Court finds that this factor still weighs in favor of preliminary approval. See Rodriguez, 563 

F.3d at 958 (finding that “[i]ncentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases” and “are 

discretionary”) (emphasis omitted).

iii. Settlement within Range of Possible Approval

The third factor that the Court considers is whether the settlement is within the range of 

possible approval. To evaluate whether the settlement amount is adequate, “courts primarily 

consider plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” 

Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1080. This requires the Court to evaluate the strength of Plaintiff’s 

case. The Class Action Fairness Act allows courts to approve coupon settlements “only after a 

hearing to determine whether, and making a written finding that, the settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate for class members.” 28 U.S.C. § 1712(e).

Here, individual class members’ recovery is approximately $70, plus the cost of an 

additional three years of identity theft protection. Dkt. No. 62 at 12. There is substantial risk 

Plaintiff would face in litigating the case given the nature of the asserted claims. Dkt. No. 62 at 

10–12. Plaintiff acknowledges, for example, that Plaintiff and the class members would face risks 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 9 of 11
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in proving Article III standing and proving Defendant’s negligence based on the duty of 

reasonable care. See id. at 11. The Court finds that the settlement amount, given this risk, weighs 

in favor of granting preliminary approval.

iv. Obvious Deficiencies

The fourth and final factor that the Court considers is whether there are obvious 

deficiencies in the settlement agreement. The Court finds no obvious deficiencies, and therefore

finds that this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

* * *

Having weighed the relevant factors, the Court preliminarily finds that the settlement 

agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and GRANTS preliminary approval. 

IV. MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APROVAL AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Court DIRECTS the parties to include both a joint proposed order and a joint 

proposed judgment when submitting their motion for final approval.

Because a portion of the proposed settlement involves a non-monetary redeemable award 

to the class members (i.e., three years of monitoring services), class counsel is directed to justify 

its request for attorneys’ fees under the standard outlined in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1712. If class counsel 

intends to argue that the proposed settlement is not subject to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1712, that argument 

should be presented in the alternative after addressing reasonable fees under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1712. 

V. PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE PLAN

For Rule 23(b)(3) class actions, “the court must direct notice to the class members the best 

notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who 

can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 

With respect to the content of the notice itself, the notice must clearly and concisely state 

in plain, easily understood language:

(i) the nature of the action; 

(ii) the definition of the class certified; 

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; 

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if 

the member so desires; 

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests 

exclusion; 

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 10 of 11
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and 

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

The Court finds that the proposed notice, Dkt. No. 67, Ex. A, is the best practicable form 

of notice under the circumstances.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval

of class action settlement. The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer and stipulate to a 

schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven 

days of the date of this Order:

Event Date

Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail 

notice to all putative class members

Filing Deadline for attorneys’ fees and costs motion

Filing deadline for incentive payment motion

Deadline for class members to opt-out or object to 

settlement and/or application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs and incentive payment

Filing deadline for final approval motion

Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions

The parties are further DIRECTED to implement the proposed class notice plan.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/1/2018

Case 4:16-cv-01722-HSG Document 68 Filed 06/01/18 Page 11 of 11