Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04748/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04748-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS 

LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04748-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT, FOR 

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES 

AND COSTS, AND FOR INCENTIVE 

PAYMENTS; JUDGMENT 

On October 5, 2015, Plaintiffs Rachel Hochstetler (“Hochstetler”) and Cirena 

Torres (“Torres”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a Motion 

for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt. No. 37. Attached as Exhibit 1 

to the Motion for Preliminary Approval was the Parties’ Stipulated Settlement Agreement 

and Release (“Settlement” or “Agreement”).1

 Defendant Pacific Gateway Concessions 

LLC (“PGC”) did not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 42. 

On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing to discuss whether the Settlement is 

fair, reasonable, and adequate, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 

23(e)(2). At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit, on or before January 11, 

2016, supplemental briefing regarding the following aspects of their proposed Settlement: 

(1) the exclusion of Electronic Goods from the type of goods that may be purchased with 

the Gift Cards that comprise the $800,000 Settlement Fund; (2) the limitation of one $100 

Gift Card per Settlement Class member; (3) Class Notice through only the posting of a 

Short-Form Notice at each cash register in each of the PGC Included Stores; and (4) the 

charities selected to receive any residual funds from the Settlement Fund. The parties 

timely submitted a supplemental response, supporting declaration, and notices addressing 

these four concerns. Dkt. Nos. 46-49. 

 

1

 Capitalized terms in this Order shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement, 

unless indicated otherwise.

Case 3:14-cv-04748-TEH Document 57 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

On February 2, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of 

the Settlement, as partially modified by Dkt. Nos. 46-49. Dkt. No. 50. As part of the same 

Order, the Court approved a plan of notice to be directed to Settlement Class members and 

set deadlines by which Settlement Class members were to opt-out, object, or request to be 

heard at the final approval hearing. Dkt. No. 50, ¶¶ 10-17. 

On May 6, 2016, Hochstetler and Torres, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of 

the Settlement Class, filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt. 

No. 51. Also on May 6, 2016, Hochstetler, Torres, and Class Counsel filed a Motion for 

Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs to Class Counsel and Incentive Payments to the Class 

Representatives. Dkt. No. 54. On June 6, 2016, the Court conducted a fairness (final 

approval) hearing. Dkt. No. 56. 

Having carefully considered all submissions and arguments presented, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 

1. The Court GRANTS final approval of the proposed Settlement upon the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement (as partially modified by the Parties’ 

supplemental agreement (Dkt. Nos. 46-49) and the Court’s Order granting preliminary 

approval thereof (Dkt. No. 50)). 

2. The Court finds that the terms of the proposed Settlement are fair, adequate, 

and reasonable and comply with Rule 23(e). 

3. The Court orders that the following Settlement Class is certified for 

settlement purposes only: 

All consumers who, at any time during the period October 24, 

2012 to October 23, 2014, were provided an electronically 

printed receipt at the point-of-sale or transaction at any store 

operated by PGC or its affiliates listed on Exhibit A to the 

Agreement (“PGC Included Stores”), on which receipt was 

printed the expiration date of the consumer’s credit card or 

debit card. 

The PGC Included Stores expressly exclude the stores listed on 

Exhibit B to the Agreement (“PGC Excluded Stores”), as these stores used a 

different point-of-sale system. 

Case 3:14-cv-04748-TEH Document 57 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

4. The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, the above-defined 

Settlement Class meets all of the requirements for class certification. The Court further 

finds that, for settlement purposes only, the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are 

satisfied and that: (a) the Settlement Class is ascertainable; (b) the members of the 

Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (c) there are questions of 

law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predominate over any individual 

questions; (d) the Class Representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement 

Class; (e) the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have fairly, adequately, reasonably 

and competently represented and protected the interests of the Settlement Class throughout 

the litigation; and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

5. The Court hereby APPOINTS plaintiffs Hochstetler and Torres as the Class 

Representatives for the Settlement Class. 

6. The Court hereby APPOINTS attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company 

A Professional Law Corporation as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 

7. The Court finds that the Settlement is the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations conducted at arm’s-length by the Parties and with the assistance of 

the Court-appointed mediator David M. Bluhm, Esq. In making these findings, the Court 

considered, among other factors, the potential statutory damages claimed in the lawsuit on 

behalf of Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class, Defendant’s potential liability, 

the risks of continued litigation including trial outcome, delay and potential appeals, the 

substantial benefits available to the Settlement Class as a result of the Settlement, and the 

fact that the proposed Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties’ respective 

positions rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial. The Court further finds that 

the terms of the Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly grant 

preferential treatment to any individual member of the Settlement Class. 

8. The Court finds that the notice that has been provided to Settlement Class, as 

well as the means by which it was provided, including the Short-Form Notice, Full Notice, 

Case 3:14-cv-04748-TEH Document 57 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

and Claim Form, attached as Exhibits D, E, and C, respectively, to the Agreement, all of 

which the Court previously approved, constitutes the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances and is in full compliance with the United States Constitution, the 

requirements of due process, and Rule 23. The Court further finds that such notice fully 

and accurately informed Settlement Class members of all material elements of the lawsuit 

and proposed class action Settlement, of each member’s right to be excluded from the 

Settlement, and each member’s right and opportunity to object to the Settlement and be 

heard at the fairness (final approval) hearing. 

9. The Court finds that the manner and content of the notice of Settlement was 

in conformity with this Court’s previous Orders. 

10. The Court finds that zero Settlement Class members timely requested 

exclusion from the Settlement. 

11. The Court finds that zero Settlement Class members timely objected to the 

Settlement. 

12. The Court finds that zero Settlement Class members timely requested to 

appear or be heard at the final approval hearing. 

13. All Settlement Class members who did not timely exclude themselves from 

the Settlement are bound by the Agreement, including the releases contained in paragraphs 

16 and 17 of the Agreement. 

14. The Court hereby directs the Parties to effectuate all terms of the Settlement 

and the Agreement. 

15. The Court finds that $200,000 in fees and costs to Class Counsel is 

reasonable under both the percentage of the total settlement approach and, alternatively, 

based upon Class Counsel’s lodestar. The Court finds that the $550 hourly rate of Class 

Counsel Chant Yedalian is reasonable based upon his qualifications, skills, and experience. 

16. The Court hereby APPROVES Class Counsel’s request for an award of 

$200,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Class Counsel Chant Yedalian of Chant 

& Company A Professional Law Corporation. Defendant PGC shall make payment of this 

Case 3:14-cv-04748-TEH Document 57 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

award to Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 

17. The Court hereby APPROVES Plaintiffs’ request for awards of $5,000 each 

to the Class Representatives, Hochstetler and Torres, as an incentive (service) award to 

compensate them for their service as the representatives of the Settlement Class. 

Defendant PGC shall make payment of these awards to the Class Representatives pursuant 

to the terms of the Agreement. 

18. If any residual funds from the Settlement Fund remain after payments are 

made to the Settlement Class members through the distribution of PGC Gift Cards, any 

and all such residual funds will be distributed to Consumers Union of the United States. 

19. Each of the Parties is to bear its own fees and costs except as expressly 

provided in the Agreement or in this Order. 

20. The Court hereby DISMISSES the Action WITH PREJUDICE in 

accordance with the terms of the Agreement; however, the Court shall retain continuing 

jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce the Settlement, and all orders and 

judgment entered in connection therewith. 

21. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter this Order as a judgment 

(subject to the terms of paragraphs 19-20, above). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/07/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-04748-TEH Document 57 Filed 06/07/16 Page 5 of 5