Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00889/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00889-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEOFFREY MCDONALD,

individually and on behalf of all other

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-889-BAS(DHB)

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING

JOINT MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

[ECF No. 45]

v.

BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD,

LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

On March 14, 2013, PlaintiffGeoffrey McDonald commenced this putative class

action in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Defendants Bass Pro Outdoor

World, LLC, BPS Direct, LLC, Bass Pro, LLC, and Bass Pro, Inc. (collectively referred

to as “Defendants” or “Bass Pro”) recorded telephone calls made to or received from

California residents without their consent in violation of the California Invasion of

Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 630, et seq. Thereafter, Defendants removed

this action to federal court. Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion

for preliminary approval of class action settlement.1

This amended order only changes the Claim/Exclusion/Objection Deadline to October 24, 1

2014, which is 60 days after the Notice Date. The aforementioned deadline was incorrectly set for

October 3, 2014, which is well before the agreed-upon date. This order VACATES and supersedes

the previous order issued on August 1, 2014. All other findings and dates shall remain the same.

- 1 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 22
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

After more than a year of litigation, the parties have reached a settlement which,

upon final court approval, will resolve the claims of Plaintiff and all putative class

members. The parties now seek an order conditionally certifying the class,

preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, approving the proposed notice, and

setting a hearing for final approval, among other things.

I. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT2

The proposed settlement agreement applies to class members defined as “[a]ll

natural persons who, while present in California and using a telephone with a

California area code, participated in at least one recorded telephone call to Bass Pro

between March 14, 2012 and March 27, 2013 or at least one recorded telephone call

from Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and April 3, 2013[.]” (Settlement § III.A.) 

The parties also agree that, subject to the Court’s approval, Dostart Clapp & Coveney,

LLP will be appointed as class counsel, Plaintiff will be appointed as class

representative, and Rust Consulting will be appointed as claims administrator. (Id. §§

III.C, III.D, & III.E.)

Themonetaryconsideration consists of $6,000,000 in cash, plus accrued interest. 

(Settlement § IV.A.) No later than fifteen court days following the preliminary

approval date, Defendants are to transfer the $6,000,000 settlement amount into an

interest-bearing escrow account administered by the claims administrator. (Id.) 

The proposed settlement also reflects a change in Defendants’ business practices

in place beginning March 28, 2013 in which they will not record any inbound

telephone callsfromCalifornia area codes without first giving notification at the outset

of the call that the call may be recorded. (Settlement § IV.C.) Defendants have not

recorded outbound calls to California since April 4, 2014. (Id.) Furthermore,

Defendants have no intention to change these practices, but reserve the right to change

The proposed settlement agreement (“Settlement”) is attached to the parties’ joint motion as 2

Exhibit 1.

- 2 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 22
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

these procedures in the event that there is a change in the law requiring two-party

consent, or there is a finding by the California Legislature or California Supreme Court

that Defendants’ telephone calls do not fall within the scope of the California Invasion

of Privacy Act in whole or in part. (Id.)

The proposed settlement also requiresthe claims administrator to provide notice

by mail and by publication, providing, among other things, a description of the terms

of the settlement, instructions for submitting a claim, and directions to accessing the

settlement website. (Settlement §§ VII.A & VII.B.) In addition to mail and publication

notice, the claims administrator will establish a settlement website on which the

administrator will make available the class notice, claim form, settlement agreement,

Plaintiff’s complaint, the order granting preliminary approval, and any other relevant

materials agreed to by the parties. (Id. § VII.C.) After the notice mailing date, class

members will have 60 days to submit a claim form indicating that they wish to

participate in, be excluded from, or object to the settlement. (Id. §§ VII.F, VII.G, &

VII.H.) The claims administrator will then determine the validity of each claim form. 

(Id. § VII.F.) Class members who submit timely and valid claims forms will constitute

the “Participating Class Members”; only participating class members will receive

settlement payments. (Id.)

In advance of the deadline for filing objections, and pursuant to In re Mercury

Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010), class counsel will

file a motion requesting an award of attorneys’ fees of up to thirty percent (30%) of the

monetary settlement amount, plus reimbursement of actual litigation expenses not to

exceed $150,000. (Settlement § V.) That motion will also request a service payment

to Plaintiff not to exceed $20,000. (Id. § VI.) Each of these amounts are subject to the

Court’s approval. 

//

//

//

- 3 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 22
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

Following final court approval and occurrence of the “Effective Date,” each 3

participating class member will be entitled to receive a pro-rata portion of the net

settlement amount—the amount available for distribution after payment of settlement

costs,including attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, a class-representative-enhancement

award, and administration expenses. (Settlement § VIII.A.) Each participating class

member will receive a settlement payment equal to the net settlement amount divided

by the number of participating class members. (Id.) Any portion of the settlement

amount not distributed to participating class members at the end of 120 days will be

paid to a court-approved cy pres recipient. (Id. § VII.B.) Provided that the effective

date occurs, Plaintiff and participating class membersin addition to class members who

do not timely request exclusion shall be deemed to have released and discharged

Defendants from any and all claims that were alleged in the complaint or claims that

could have been asserted arising out of facts alleged in the complaint that took place

during the class period. (Id. §§ IX.A, IX.B, & IX.C.)

II. ANALYSIS

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the settlement

of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir.

1992). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) first “require[s] the district

court to determine whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

reasonable.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). Where the

“partiesreach a settlement agreement prior to class certification, courts must peruse the

proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness

of the settlement.” Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). In these

The proposed settlement agreement defines the “Effective Date,” subject to certain conditions,

3

as “the Final Approval Date unless a Class Member files a timely objection to the Settlement that is

not withdrawn before the Court enters an order granting final approval of the Settlement.” (Settlement

§ II.A.5.)

- 4 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 4 of 22
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

situations, settlement approval “requires 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A. Class Certification

Before granting preliminary approval of a class-action settlement,theCourt must

first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. v.

Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (indicating that a district court must apply

“undiluted, even heightened, attention [to class certification] in the settlement context”

in order to protect absentees).

The class action is “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by

and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,

131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01

(1979)). In order to justify a departure from that rule, “a class representative must be

part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class

members.” Id. (citing E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403

(1977)). In this regard, Rule 23 contains two sets of class-certification requirements

set forth in Rule 23(a) and (b). United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy,

Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 806

(9th Cir. 2010). “A court may certify a class if a plaintiff demonstrates that all of the

prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been met, and that at least one of the requirements of

Rule 23(b) have been met.” Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 251 F.R.D. 439, 443

(N.D. Cal. 2008). 

“Rule 23(a) provides four prerequisites that must be satisfied for class

certification: (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable; (2) questions of law or fact exist that are common to the class; (3) the

claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of

the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

- 5 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 22
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

interests of the class.” Otsuka, 251 F.R.D. at 443 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). “A

plaintiff must also establish that one or more of the grounds for maintaining the suit are

met under Rule 23(b), including: (1) that there is a risk of substantial prejudice from

separate actions; (2) that declaratory or injunctive relief benefitting the class as a whole

would be appropriate; or (3) that common questions of law or fact predominate and the

class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication.” Id. (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)). The parties seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

1. Numerosity – Rule 23(a)(1) 

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

is impracticable. “[C]ourts generally find that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the

class comprises 40 or more members and will find that it has not been satisfied when

the class comprises 21 or fewer.” Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544, 549

(N.D. Cal. 2007).

The proposed class consists of more than 30,000 individuals who can be

identified fromDefendants’ records, plus additional unidentified individuals for whom

Defendants’ records do not reflect name or address information. (Hannink Decl. ¶ 13.) 

Thus, joinder of all members is impracticable for the purposes of Rule 23(a)(1).

2. Commonality – Rule 23(a)(2) 

Under Rule 23(a)(2), the named plaintiff must demonstrate that there are

“questions of law or fact common to the class.” Commonality requires the plaintiff to

demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury[.]’” Dukes, 131 S.

Ct. at 2551 (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982)). 

However, “[a]ll questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy this rule.” 

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019. “The existence ofshared legal issues with divergent factual

predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate

legal remedies within the class.” Id.

- 6 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 6 of 22
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

In this case, all class members were allegedly the subject of undisclosed

recording by Defendants of telephone calls made to or received from California

residents without their consent. In addition to sharing this “common core of salient

facts,” class members also share a common legal issue: whether Defendants’ alleged

recording of telephone calls violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. 

Accordingly, Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied.

3. Typicality – Rule 23(a)(3) 

To satisfy Rule 23(a)(3), the named plaintiff’s claims must be typical of the

claims of the class. The typicality requirement is “permissive” and requires only that

the named plaintiff’s claims “are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class

members.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. “The test of typicality ‘is whether other

members have the same orsimilar 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 same course of conduct.’” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497,

508 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schwartz v. Harp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 282 (C.D. Cal. 1985)). 

“[C]lass certification should not be granted if ‘there is a danger that absent class

members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.’” 

Id. (quoting Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

Inc., 903 F.2d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 1990)).

Like the other class members, Plaintiff’s claimisthat his telephone conversation

with Defendants’ customer service representatives were recorded without his consent. 

Thus, Plaintiff and the class members assert the same violation of the California

Invasion of Privacy Act. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims of the

class members, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3).

//

//

//

- 7 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 7 of 22
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

4. Adequacy – Rule 23(a)(4) 

Rule 23(a)(4)requiresthat the representative plaintiff “will fairly and adequately

protect the interest of the class.” “To satisfy constitutional due process concerns,

absent class members must be afforded adequate representation before entry of a

judgment which binds them.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (citing Hansberry v. Lee, 311

U.S. 32, 42-43 (1940)). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1)

do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class

members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action

vigorously on behalf of the class?” Id. (citing Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc.,

582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978)).

The Court is unable to identify any reason to doubt that the named plaintiff and

his counsel do not have any conflict of interest with the class members or that they

have thus far vigorously investigated and litigated this action. (See Hannink Decl. ¶¶

9, 15.) In other words, the interests of Plaintiff and the class members are aligned. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel are qualified in class-action litigation, including

handling several cases involving claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. 

(Id. ¶¶ 3–9.) Therefore, Plaintiff and his counsel adequately represent the class

members, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement.

5. Predominance – Rule 23(b)(3)

 “The predominance inquiry focuses on ‘the relationship between the common

and individual issues’ and ‘tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to

warrant adjudication by representation.’” Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

571 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009).

Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements

were added to cover cases in which a class action would

achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote

. . . uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated,

without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about

other undesirable results. Accordingly, a central concern of

the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test is whether adjudication

of common issues will help achieve judicial economy.

- 8 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 8 of 22
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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, a common issue predominates over any individual issue—specifically,

whether Defendants recorded telephone conversations without providing a notice at the

outset of the call, and whether such calls gave rise to an objectively reasonable

expectation that the calls would not be recorded under California Penal Code § 632. 

The parties indicate that Defendants had standardized procedures with respect to

handling and recording telephone calls, and did not institute procedures to notify

callers that calls are recorded until after the commencement of this lawsuit. (Hannink

Decl. ¶ 13.) Given that the alleged conduct that violated the California Invasion of

Privacy Act was Defendants’ standard policy prior to the commencement of this

lawsuit and throughout the class period, the relationship between any common and

individual issues are sufficiently cohesive in order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s

predominance requirement.

6. Superiority – Rule 23(b)(3) 

“Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that a class action is ‘superior to other

availablemethodsfor fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.’” Otsuka, 251

F.R.D. at 448 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)). “Where classwide litigation of common

issues will reduce litigation costs and promote greater efficiency, a class action may be

superior to other methods of litigation,” and it is superior “if no realistic alternative

exists.” Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 1996). The

following factors are pertinent to this analysis:

(A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling

the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the

controversy already begun by or against class members;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the

litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

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

- 9 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 9 of 22
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

As the parties point out, the alternative to a class action would be to have the

individual class members, which amount to over 30,000 individuals, file separate

lawsuits. Requiring class members to pursue individual actions would potentially

produce lawsuits numbering in the ten of thousands. That would be both impractical

and inefficient. Such individual litigation would consume judicial resources, impose

additional burdens and expenses on the litigants, and present a risk of inconsistent

rulings. Therefore, Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement is also satisfied.

B. Preliminary Fairness Determination

Having certified the class, the court must next make a preliminary determination

of whether the class-action settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to

Rule 23(e)(1)(C). “It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual

component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

1026. A court may not “delete, modify or substitute certain provisions” of the

settlement; rather, “[t]he settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Id.

“[S]ettlement approval that takes place prior to formal class certification requires

a higher standard of fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Consequently, a district

court “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). Other relevant factors to this

determination include, among others, “the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk,

expense, complexity, and likely duration of 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 proceedings; the experience and views of

counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class

members to the proposed settlement.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

//

- 10 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 10 of 22
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

Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is

appropriate if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed,

non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant

preferential treatment to class representatives orsegments of the class, and falls within

the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d

1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, the parties’ proposed settlement agreement complies with all of these

requirements. The Court will address the relevant factors in further detail below.

1. Strength of Plaintiff’s Case and Risk of Further Litigation

“[T]he very essence of a settlement is compromise, ‘a yielding of absolutes and

an abandoning of highest hopes.’” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of the

City &Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982). As explained by the

Supreme Court, “Naturally, the agreement reached normally embodies a compromise;

in exchange for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up

something they might have won had they proceeded with litigation.” United States v.

Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-82 (1971).

Here, presumably recognizing the merits of each side’s case, the parties agree

that “there is no doubt that a motion for class certification would be hotly contested.”

(Joint Mot. 11:18–2:8.) They also consider the possible trajectory of this action if

litigation were to continue—“the trial process itself and subsequent appeals would take

years, with very substantial expenditures of time and resources by the parties and the

Court, and without any guarantee of recovery for class members.” (Id. at 12:9–14.) 

The Court agrees with the parties that the proposed settlement eliminates all litigation

risks and ensures that the class members receive some compensation for their claims

on a timely basis. Therefore, on balance, the strength of Plaintiff’s case and risk of

further litigation favor approving the proposed settlement. SeeReed v. 1-800 Contacts,

Inc., No. 12-cv-02359, 2014 WL 29011, at *5-7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) (Miller, J.)

- 11 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 11 of 22
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

(approving class-action settlement in an action brought under the California Invasion

of Privacy Act).

2. Amount of the Proposed Settlement

According to the parties, the settlement amount equates to approximately

$197.49 for each potential class members for whom name and address information is

reflected in Defendants’ records. (Joint Mot. 12:15–25.) That calculation is apparently

a result of dividing the full $6,000,000 settlement by the approximate 30,400

identifiable individual customers who make up the class. 

However, the full $6,000,000 amount will almost certainly not be available for

distribution because of the attorneys’-fees, litigation-costs, and service-payment

deductions. These values could amount to, respectively, $1,800,000, $150,000, and

$20,000. Taking into account these deductions, the amount available for distribution

to the class members could be as low as $4,030,000, which turns out to produce a

$132.57 payment to each potential class member. That said, the payout could also be 4

higher depending on the final size of the participating class.

Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a plaintiff may bring a private

action to recover three times the amount of actual damages or $5,000, whichever is

greater. Though the proposed settlement would be considerably less than $5,000 per

class member, “[t]he fact that a proposed settlement may only amount to a fraction of

the potential recovery does not, in and of itself, mean that the proposed settlement is

grossly inadequate and should be disapproved.” Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151

F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998). And though the parties are mistaken that the

proposed settlement here compares favorably to the settlement in Reed, the Reed court

cited California Invasion of Privacy Act cases where settlements aslow as $30 and $10

The Court’s values were calculated based on the following arithmetic: (1) $4,030,000 =

4

$6,000,000 – $1,800,000 – $150,000 – $20,000; and (2) $132.57 = $4,030,000 / 30,400.

- 12 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 12 of 22
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

per class member were approved. See Reed, 2014 WL 29011, at *6 (citing multiple

5

cases). Therefore, under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the amount

offered in the settlement weighs in favor of approval. See id.

3. Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of the Proceedings

The parties describe the discovery conducted thus far as “extensive and hardfought.” (Joint Mot. 13:5–10.) Formal discovery began on July 30, 2013. (Hannink

Decl. ¶ 11.) During the following months, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded ten sets of

interrogatories, six sets of requests for production of documents, and four sets of

requests for admissions, while Defendants’ counsel propounded three sets of

interrogatories, three sets of requests for production, and a notice for Plaintiff’s

deposition that included another demand for production of documents. (Id.) 

Throughout the litigation, Plaintiff also sought to obtain information from putative

class members, including names, addresses and telephone numbers of California

customers. (Id. ¶ 12.) 

As a result of discovery, the parties identified approximately 94,600 calls

between Defendants and its California customers during the class period, of which over

30,000 individuals could be identified. (Hannink Decl. ¶ 13.) The evidence obtained

also establishes that Defendants “had standardized procedures with respect to the

handling and recording of telephone calls, and did not institute procedures to notify

callers that calls are recorded until after the lawsuit was filed.” (Id.) Based on the

discovery completed, Plaintiff and his counsel contend that they are “sufficiently

familiar with the facts of this case and the applicable law to make an informed

judgment as to the fairness of the Settlement.” (Joint Mot. 13:5–10.) 

In summarizing Reed, the parties calculated the relief provided by the settlement to be $117 5

per class member. However, the Reed court explicitly found that the distribution payment at the very

minimum would amount to $606.56 for each valid claim. Reed, 2014 WL 29011, at *6. This disparity

is the basis for this Court rejecting the parties’ contention that the proposed settlement in this case

compares favorably to the one in Reed.

- 13 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 13 of 22
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

The proposed settlement was also the result of mediation efforts overseen by

retired United States Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas, who conducted full-daymediation

sessions on December 12, 2013 and February 27, 2014. (Hannink Decl. ¶ 14.) 

Although the parties made significant progress during these sessions, they were unable

to reach a settlement. (Id.) Ultimately, “in an effort to bridge the remaining

differences, Judge Papas made a mediator’s proposal, which both parties accepted.” 

(Id.) The mediator’s proposal included the right to confirmatory discovery—which

Plaintiff exercised by deposing BPS Direct, LLC’s corporate designee—and the

settlement documents were finalized and signed on May 22, 2014. (Id.)

Upon reviewing the current extent of discovery completed and the current stage

of litigation, the Court concludes that this factor favors approval.

4. Experience and Views of Counsel

The declaration that class counsel provides highlights their experience in class

actions, including being appointed as lead or co-lead class counsel in more than fifty

certified class actions in state and federal courts. (Hannink Decl. ¶¶ 3–10.) Class

counsel also declaresthat in their opinion, “the proposed settlement isfair, reasonable,

and in the best interests of the class members[.]” (Id. ¶ 10.) Class counsel further

declares that “[a]t all times, the [settlement] negotiations were adversarial, noncollusive, and conducted at arm’s-length.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Defendants’ counsel does not

explicitly provide any recommendation as to this factor in the joint motion or by

declaration.

“The recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of

reasonableness.” Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979). 

Accordingly, giving the appropriate weight to class counsel’s recommendation, the

Court concludes that this factor also weighs in favor of approval. See id.

//

//

- 14 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 14 of 22
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

5. Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

The proposed settlement agreement requires two primary methods of notifying

the class members. First, the proposed settlement agreement requires the claims

administrator to directly mail potential class members the class notice and claim form

at their respective last-known addresses. (Settlement § VII.B.) In the event that the

mailing isreturned as undeliverable, the claims administrator will perform a skip-trace

or other customary address searches; if a new address is obtained, the claims

administrator will re-mail the settlement documents. (Id.) And second, beginning on

the notice date, the claims administrator will notify the class by publication at two

times in the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune,

Sacramento Bee, and Fresno Bee. Moreover, the claims administrator will establish

a settlement website on which the class notice, claim form, settlement agreement, and

other relevant documents will be made available. (Id. § VII.C.) Both forms of notice,

including the claim form, provide the website address. (Settlement Exs. B–D.)

Each method of notifying the class ofthe settlement provides directionsto where

class members can learn about the procedures regarding filing claims, opting out, or

objecting to the settlement. (Settlement Exs. B–D. ) Consequently, class members will

6

have an opportunity to object or opt out of the settlement. Class counsel indicates that

they will “report on the reaction of the class members at the final approval hearing.” 

(Joint Mot. 13:16–19.) Thus, at this time, this factor weighs in favor of approving the

settlement.

//

//

//

The parties attach copies of the anticipated class notice, publication notice, and claim form 6

as exhibits. However, these documents aremarked with both an exhibit number and letter—the former

suggesting the documents are exhibits to the declaration, and the latter suggesting the documents are

exhibits to the proposed settlement agreement. Because the exhibit letters aremore specific, the Court

will use the exhibit letters when referring to these documents. 

- 15 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 15 of 22
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

C. Proposed Class Notice

Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “the court must direct to class members the best notice

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

who can be identified through reasonable effort.” 

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; (vi) the time and manner for requesting

exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on

members under Rule 23(c)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)(2)(B). “[T]he mechanics of the notice process are left to the

discretion of the court subject only to the broad ‘reasonableness’ standards imposed by

due process.” Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 120 (8th Cir. 1975).

The proposed class notice describes the litigation, the terms of the settlement,

and each class members’ rights and options under the settlement. (Settlement Ex. B.) 

The claims administrator will mail the notice by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the

last-known address of each class member for whom Defendants’ records contain such

information. The claims administrator will also provide publication notice in various

publications throughout California. The publication notice briefly describes the

litigation, states the deadlines for filing a claim, opting out, or objecting to the

settlement, and directs the recipient to the settlement website for further information. 

Both methods of notice also direct the recipient to the settlement website for further

information, including accessing the relevant documents.

Having reviewed the proposed class notice, claim form, and publication notice,

the Court finds that the methods and contents of the notice comply with due process

and Rule 23. Therefore, the Court approves of the proposed notice.

//

//

//

- 16 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 16 of 22
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

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for

preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Accordingly, the Court hereby

ORDERS the following:

(1) The Court conditionally certifies the following class for settlement

purposes only: “All natural persons who, while present in California and

using a telephone with a California area code, participated in at least one

recorded telephone call to Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and March

27, 2013 or at least one recorded telephone call from Bass Pro between

March 14, 2012 and April 3, 2013 (the ‘Class Period’).” The members of

the Class are referred to as the “Class Members.”

(2) The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Class meets the

requirements for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Court also appoints Plaintiff asthe representative

of the Class, Dostart Clapp & Coveney, LLP as Class Counsel, and Rust

Consulting as the Claims Administrator.

(3) The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, including the monetary

relief, change of business practices, procedure for payment of Class

Counsel attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to the extent ultimately

awarded by the Court, and procedure for payment of the Class

Representative incentive award to the extent ultimately awarded by the

Court. The Court has reviewed the monetary relief and the change of

business practices that have been provided as part of the Settlement and

recognizes their significant value to the Class. The Court finds on a

preliminary basis that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable as

to all potential Class Members. The Court also recognizes that the

Settlement has been reached as a result of intensive, serious, and noncollusive arm’s-length negotiations.

- 17 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 17 of 22
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

(4) TheCourt approvesthe Notice ofClass Action Settlement (Settlement Ex.

B), the Publication Notice (Settlement Ex. C), and the Claim Form

(Settlement Ex. D). The notice procedure described in the Settlement

meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due

process, and constitutes the best practicable notice under the

circumstances. The Claims Administrator is directed to mail class notices

no later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this Order, and to take all

steps necessary to establish a settlement website. The Claims

Administrator is also directed to publish notice to the Class as provided

in the Settlement.

(5) Any objections to the Settlement or to any of its provisions must be filed

with this Court and served upon counsel no later than sixty (60) days

following the mailing of the Notice of Class Action Settlement, or else

such objection will be waived.

(6) As set forth in the Settlement, any class member who wishes to opt out of

the Class shall mail, email, or deliver to the Claims Administrator a

written request to opt out no later than sixty (60) days following the

mailing of the Notice of Class Action Settlement. Individuals in the Class

who do not timely request exclusion shall be bound by all determinations

of the Court, the Settlement, and any Judgment that may be entered

thereon.

(7) If they have not already done so, each defendant shall promptly comply

with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

(8) The parties shall file their motion for final approval, and Class Counsel

shall file its motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and a service

payment to Plaintiff on the dates required under the Local Rules and

under controlling law.

//

- 18 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 18 of 22
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

(9) A final approval hearing shall be held in this Court on December 15,

2014 at 10:30 a.m. at 221 West Broadway, Courtroom 4B, 4th Floor, San

Diego, CA 92101, at which time the Court will determine whether the

Settlement should be granted final approval. At that time, the Court will

also consider Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation

expenses, and a proposed service payment to Plaintiff.

(10) Any Participating Class Member may appear at the Final Approval

Hearing and object to the Settlement (“Objectors”). Objectors may

present evidence and file briefs or other papers that may be proper and

relevant to the issues to be heard and determined by the Court. No Class

Member or any other person shall be heard or entitled to object, and no

papers or briefs submitted by any such person shall be received or

considered by the Court, unless on or before the date that is sixty (60)

days after the original date of mailing of the Class Notice, that person has

filed the objections, papers, and briefs with the Clerk of the Court for the

Southern District of California, and has served by hand or by first-class

mail copies of such objections, papers and briefs upon Class Counsel and

Defendants’ counsel. Any Participating Class Member who does not

7

object in the manner provided for in this order shall be deemed to have

waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from objecting to

the Settlement.

//

//

//

//

7 Objectors should mail objections to Defendants’ Counsel at the following address: Pillsbury

Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Attn: Richard M. Segal, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego,

CA 92101-3575.

- 19 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 19 of 22
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

(11) If the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the terms

of and as defined in the Settlement, or if the Settlement is not finally

approved by the Court, or is terminated, canceled, or fails to become

effective for any reason, this order shall be rendered null and void and

shall be vacated at the parties’ request, and the partiesshall revert to their

respective positions as of before entering into the Settlement.

Accordingly, if the Settlement does not become effective for any reason:

(a) the Settlement shall be null and void and shall have no further force

and effect with respect to any party in this action, and shall not be used in

this action or in any other proceeding for any purpose; and (b) all

negotiations, proceedings, documents prepared, and statements made in

connection therewith shall be without prejudice to any person or party

hereto, shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission by any party

of any act, matter, or proposition, and shall not be used in any manner or

for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in this action, provided,

however, that the termination of the Settlement shall not shield from

subsequent discovery any factual information provided in connection with

the negotiation oftheSettlement that would ordinarily be discoverable but

for the attempted settlement.

(12) The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Final

Approval Hearing and all dates provided for in the Settlement without

further notice to Class Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all

further matters arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement.

(13) In accordance with the terms of the Settlement, the Court hereby adopts

the following dates for performance of the specified activities:

//

//

//

- 20 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 20 of 22
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

August 11, 2014 Deadline for Bass Pro to provide Claims

Administrator and Class Counsel with electronic

database containing unique telephone numbers

of all calls recorded during the class period and,

if available, the name(s) and address(es)

associated with each number.

August 19, 2014 Deadline for Bass Pro to transfer $6,000,000

into an interest-bearing escrow account

administered by the Claims Administrator.

August 25, 2014 Deadline for Claims Administrator to mail the

Class Notice to all Class Members. This is the

“Notice Date.”

August 25, 2014 Deadline for Claims Administrator to establish

a website on which it will make available the

Class Notice, Claim Form, Settlement

Agreement, Complaint, this Order Granting

Preliminary Approval, and any other materials

agreed to by the parties.

August 25, 2014 The date subsequent to which the Claims

Administrator will publish a series of two

advertisements in the Los Angeles Times, San

FranciscoChronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune,

Sacramento Bee, and Fresno Bee.

October 24, 2014 Claim/Exclusion/Objection Deadline; Last day

for Class Members to file and serve any written

objections to the Settlement and any notice of

intent to appear at Final Approval Hearing

December 15, 2014

at 10:30 a.m.

Final Approval Hearing will take place at 221

West Broadway, Courtroom 4B, 4th Floor, San

Diego, CA 92101

Effective Date Date of entry of Judgment, unless a Class

Member files a timely objection to the

Settlement that is not withdrawn before the

Court enters an order granting final approval of

the Settlement. If a Class Member files a timely

objection to the Settlement that is not withdrawn

before the Court enters an order granting final

approval of the Settlement, the later of (a) thirtyone (31) days after the entry of the Judgment if

an appeal is not timely filed, or (b) if an objector

timely files an appeal from the Judgment, the

date the appeal is dismissed or the Judgement is

affirmed and no longer subject to mandatory or

discretionary appellate review.

Effective Date + 15

court days

Claims Administrator will mail each

Participating Class Member a check representing

that person’s settlement payment.

- 21 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 21 of 22
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

Effective Date +

120 days

All uncashed settlement checks will be void, and

any portion of the Settlement Amount that

remains unpaid at the end of 120 days will be

paid to a cy pres recipient proposed by the

Parties and approved by the court, or as

otherwise directed by the court.

(15) The parties are ordered to carry out the Settlement in the manner provided

in the Settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2014

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 22 - 13cv889

Case 3:13-cv-00889-BAS-DHB Document 47 Filed 08/05/14 Page 22 of 22