Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05868/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05868-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ROSALINA C. RELENTE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIATOR, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05868-JD 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL

APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 98

On April 1, 2015, the Court held a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed 

class action settlement entered into between the parties. The Court previously granted preliminary 

approval of the settlement. See Dkt. No. 76. After carefully considering the proposed class action 

settlement, the Court grants final approval. A separate order will address plaintiffs’ counsel’s 

motion for attorney’s fees.

INTRODUCTION

The facts as alleged in this case were set out in the Court’s order granting preliminary 

approval of the proposed settlement. See Dkt. No. 76. To recap, the plaintiffs, Rosalina Relente 

and Travis Anderson, allege that Viator, a company that markets and sells “tours and experiences” 

through its website, displayed some tours with a “strike-through price” -- a price with a line 

running through it to convey the fact that it was superseded. See Sitkin Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 80. 

Plaintiffs claimed that these strike-through prices misled consumers about the amount by which 

the tours’ prices were discounted. See id.

The terms of the proposed settlement are straightforward. The class of customers who 

would be covered by the settlement, unless they opt out, consists of:

All persons who purchased a Viator tour worldwide using a 

California billing address from October 16, 2008 through June 7, 

2014 when a Strikethrough Price was displayed with no Special 

Case 3:12-cv-05868-JD Document 108 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Offer Text.

Proposed Settlement ¶ 3.1, Dkt. No. 63-1. The “special offer text” refers to an explanation on the 

website of the basis for the strikethrough price. Id. § 2.23.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Viator will be subject to a permanent 

injunction requiring it to include a description of the basis for a strike-through price whenever it 

lists one on its website or apps. Id. § 5. In addition, the settlement provides for a $515,000 

settlement fund, to be divided between the class members based on how much they paid for their 

tour. Id. § 2.5. There are 16,637 class members, resulting in an average payout of $30.96. See 

Lake Decl. ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 100. None of the settlement fund reverts to Viator.

The members of the proposed class would release Viator from:

any and all liabilities, claims, cross-claims, causes of action, rights, 

actions suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements, damages, costs, 

attorneys’ fees, losses, expenses, obligations, or demands, of any 

kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, existing or potential, 

or suspected or unsuspected, whether raised by claim, counterclaim, 

setoff, or otherwise, including any known or unknown claims, which 

they have or may claim now or in the future to have, that were or 

could have been alleged against any of the Released Persons in the 

Action, that relate to the advertising of tours (‘Released Claims’). 

The Release shall have no effect on any claims arising after June 7, 

2014.

Proposed Settlement § 8.1.

In addition, Viator will be subject to a permanent injunction requiring it to include a 

description of the basis for a strike-through price whenever it lists one on its website or apps. Id. § 

5.

Notice was provided in the form of a website, Lake Decl. ¶ 6, emails to the class members, 

id. ¶ 7, and postcards to those class members whose email notice bounced, id. ¶ 9. The emails 

were tested to avoid being caught by spam filters. Id. ¶ 7. The postcard notice was used for 664 

potential class members, and 32 were returned as undeliverable. Id. ¶ 9. There have been eight 

requests for exclusion from the settlement and no objections. Id. ¶ 10.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, 

or compromised only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Court approval generally

Case 3:12-cv-05868-JD Document 108 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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

involves a two-step process: (1) preliminary approval of the settlement; and (2) following a notice 

period to the class, final approval of the settlement at a fairness hearing. See Nat'l Rural 

Telecoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004). The Court may 

issue final approval of a class settlement “only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. 

Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

In assessing the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the Court must look at a 

number of factors, including (1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, 

complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status 

throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed 

and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; and (7) the reaction of 

the class members to the proposed settlement. See Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 361 

F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004).

With respect to prongs one through four, although the parties have not provided much 

information regarding the specific strengths and weaknesses in this case, the Court believes that 

the relief the class would get in light of the risks they face is reasonable. The complaint sought 

restitution for the amounts the putative class members paid for tours, which ranged from $10.79 to 

$4,025. Klein Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 67. Compared to these payments, the average recovery from 

the settlement, which is slightly in excess of $30, does not appear overly meager when combined 

with the fact that the permanent injunction required by the settlement appears to eliminate the 

“strike-through price” problem in the future.

With respect to the likelihood of maintaining class action status, the parties point to the 

difficulties in deciding on a class-wide basis whether California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., was violated by strike-through prices, noting that the reliance 

and injury to class members may require determination on an individualized basis.

As for discovery, the parties exchanged a large amount of written discovery, took the 

depositions of the named plaintiffs and Viator’s corporate representative, and interviewed Viator’s 

Case 3:12-cv-05868-JD Document 108 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 4
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

customers and competitors. See Sitkin Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, 16, Dkt. No. 65. Counsel, as is usual in 

class action settlements, support the settlement. And significantly, no class members have 

objected to the class action settlement. Indeed, plaintiff’s counsel claim that they received only 

positive feedback. Sitkin Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 99. In light of all these factors, the Court finds the 

proposed settlement far, reasonable, adequate, and just, and grants final approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05868-JD Document 108 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 4