Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00700/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00700-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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 

PIERRE BRAILSFORD, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

JACKSON HEWITT INC.; TAX SERVICES 

OF AMERICA, INC., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 06-00700 CW 

CLASS ACTION

AMENDED FINAL ORDER APPROVING 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

EXPENSES

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 13
1

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

This matter having come before the Court at the fairness and final approval hearing 

(the “Fairness Hearing”) on April 27, 2007, which date was previously set by the Court, and 

upon the Plaintiff’s motion for an order of final approval of the settlement agreement, 

certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and application for attorneys’ fees and 

expenses. Appearances were made on behalf of the Plaintiff by Mark A. Chavez, of Chavez 

& Gertler LLP, John Roddy of Roddy Klein and Ryan, Ronald Frederick of Ronald Frederick 

& Associates, Co., L.P.A., and Brian A. Glasser and John W. Barrett of Bailey & Glasser 

LLP, all of whom were previously certified as Class Counsel in the Order of Preliminary 

Approval dated January 12, 2007 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) and on behalf of the 

Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc., and Tax Services of America, Inc, by Raoul S. Kennedy, 

Joren D. Bass, Andrew L. Sandler, Benjamin B. Klubes and Michael P. Kelly of Skadden, 

Arps, Meagher & Flom. The Court has reviewed the briefing, evidence and record adduced at 

the Fairness Hearing and has considered the oral and written arguments on the motions, and 

being prepared to rule, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. 

I. FINDINGS 

A. Rule 23 Requisites 

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Class Representative’s 

individual and class claims. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Class Representative 

and the Defendants.

2. Plaintiff has satisfied each of the prerequisites for a class action under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) in that: (a) the number of Class members is so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; 

(c) the claims of the Class Representative are typical of the claims of the Class; (d) the Class 

Representative and her counsel have and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of 

the Class; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class; and (f) a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 13
2

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

3. The Class was, in the Preliminary Approval Order, provisionally certified under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only, as a class comprised of all customers 

who obtained a Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) in California that was facilitated by 

Jackson Hewitt from a national bank between December 23, 2001 and December 23, 2005.

The Class does not include the following otherwise falling within the above definition: (i) 

anyone who is an officer, director, or employee of Jackson Hewitt or any of its franchisees; 

and (ii) anyone who applied for and obtained a refund anticipation loan outside the class 

period or outside of California. 

4. The members of the Class can and have been identified from the records of the 

Defendants. There are over 150,000 persons in the Class. It would be impracticable to join 

so many persons as named parties. 

5. The claims of the Class Representative, Pierre Brailsford, are typical of the 

claims of members of the Class, and are common to the members of the Class. The Class 

Representative claims in her complaint that by facilitating RALs, Jackson Hewitt violated the 

California Credit Services Act of 1984, Civil Code §§ 1789.10 to 1789.26 (“CSA”), violated 

the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and breached 

fiduciary duties to RAL purchasers. The Class Representative seeks damages for these 

alleged wrongs. Class Members will benefit from the relief the Class Representative seeks on 

their behalf. 

6. The Class Representative has adequately represented the class. Her interests do 

not diverge from those of the Class members. 

7. The Preliminary Approval Order provided for the appointment of Pierre 

Brailsford as the Class Representative. The Order also appointed Mark A. Chavez, of Chavez 

& Gertler LLP, John Roddy of Roddy Klein and Ryan, Ronald Frederick of Ronald Frederick 

& Associates, Co., L.P.A., and Brian A. Glasser and John W. Barrett of Bailey & Glasser 

LLP as Class Counsel. 

8. Class Counsel are lawyers and law firms with substantial experience in the 

prosecution of class actions similar to this class action. The terms of the proposed settlement 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 13
3

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

demonstrate that the Class Representative and her counsel have adequately represented the 

interests of members of the Class. 

9. Common questions of law and fact predominate for the purposes of settlement 

of this proceeding. Common questions include: (1) whether Defendants violated the CSA; 

(2) whether Defendants obtained fees for assisting in the arrangement of RALs for Class 

Members either directly or indirectly; (3) whether Defendants failed to utilize the required 

forms when engaging in conduct covered by the CSA; (4) whether Defendants failed to 

disclose to Class Members their rights under the CSA; (5) whether Defendants violated 

Business & Professions Code § 17200 in the marketing and arranging of RALs; and (6) 

whether Defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Class Members in arranging, obtaining 

or helping to obtain RALs. For settlement purposes, this Court considers whether the 

proposed settlement provides fair, adequate and reasonable compensation for claims of Class 

members arising from the Defendants’ allegedly common practice and method of doing 

business. The common issues predominate for the purposes of settlement. 

10. All members of the Class obtained RALs in California, and therefore California 

law governs the claims of the Class members. 

11. For the purposes of granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement, the 

Class, as defined, is manageable. 

12. Defendants categorically deny any liability or wrongdoing in this case.

Without any admission or concession by the Defendants of any liability or wrongdoing with 

respect to the allegations made or which could have been made in the Complaint, all claims of 

the Class Members shall be finally and fully compromised, settled and released, and this 

action dismissed with prejudice, upon and subject to the terms and conditions of the 

Settlement Agreement, which were the subject of extensive negotiations between and 

agreement by the parties, and subject to the terms and conditions of this Order. 

B. Class Notice 

13. Rust Consulting, Inc. was appointed as Claims Administrator (the “Claims 

Administrator”), and has acted as such throughout this litigation. The Claims Administrator 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 4 of 13
4

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

facilitated notice. The Court has received and considered the Affidavit of Senior Project 

Administrator Amy Lake and the exhibits thereto as part of the Fairness Hearing. 

14. The Court previously approved the form of the written notice (the “Mailed 

Notice”) which was sent to Class members. The Court reiterates its prior findings, and hereby 

again finds, that the Mailed Notice fairly and adequately informed Class members of the 

nature of the action, the terms of the proposed settlement, the effect of the action and 

settlement on other actions raising similar claims, the Class members’ rights to exclude 

themselves from this action, and the Class members’ rights to object to the proposed 

settlement.

15. The requirements for opting out of the Class are stated with reasonable clarity 

in the Mailed Notice, and are not overly complicated. 

16. The Mailed Notice adequately describes the benefits to be paid to the Class as a 

whole. The Mailed Notice provides adequate explanation of how the amount to be paid to an 

individual Class member will be calculated. Given the nature of the settlement, it would be 

impossible to estimate accurately the actual amount an individual Class member will receive 

from the settlement. Class members would not have been aided substantially by the Mailed 

Notice containing any additional information regarding settlement benefits. 

17. The Mailed Notice adequately discloses the nature and scope of the release 

provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 

18. The Mailed Notice adequately discloses that the Class Representative would 

seek a service award for herself, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the amounts 

requested.

19. The distribution of the Mailed Notice was made by First Class Mail, postage 

prepaid, by the Claims Administrator to Class members in substantially the form attached to 

the Settlement Agreement, which form was previously reviewed and approved by this Court 

in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Mailed Notice was individually addressed to each 

person meeting the definition of the Class at his or her current or last known address as 

reflected in the records of the Defendants, as updated by the Claims Administrator by its use 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 5 of 13
5

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

of one or more locator databases. The mailing occurred on February 16, 2007, and a reminder 

was mailed to all those who had not responded on March 19, 2007. The deadline for opting 

out by Class members was April 7, 2007. 

20. The Mailed Notice adequately reflected the date by which Class members could 

object to class certification, the settlement agreement, Class Counsel’s requested attorneys’ 

fees and expenses, or the proposed payment to the Class Representative, which objection date 

was specified as April 7, 2007. 

21. There was an adequate interval between the Mailed Notice and the opt-out 

deadline and between the Mailed Notice and the objection deadline so as to permit Class 

members to choose what to do, and to act on their decisions. 

C. Opt-Outs and Objections 

22. Following the Mailed Notice, the Class Counsel received opt-out notices from 

two persons: 

Chuck Perry, 5372 Litt Rd., Modesto, CA 95357; and 

 Valrose Larmond, 4985 Comanche Dr. apt. 2, La Mesa, CA 91941-3517. 

23. No objections were filed or received. 

D. Fairness of the Settlement 

24. The Settlement Agreement was reached as the result of extensive arm’s length 

negotiations between the parties. The Agreement was facilitated by an experienced mediator, 

Edward A. Infante, former Chief Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, who submitted an affidavit attesting to the parties’ good faith 

negotiations, and offering his opinion that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.

The terms of the Settlement are also consistent with the terms of the Settlement reached 

between Defendants and the California Attorney General resolving similar claims asserted by 

the Attorney General. The Plaintiff has been represented by a group of experienced law firms 

with a wide range of experience in class action litigation, including law firms which have 

pursued similar litigation against other RAL facilitators for years. 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 6 of 13
6

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

25. Sufficient investigation and discovery was accomplished to permit counsel for 

the parties and the Court to intelligently evaluate the proposed settlement. 

26. The settlement is recommended by counsel for both parties. Class Counsel and 

counsel for the Defendants are skilled and experienced lawyers and law firms with extensive 

experience handling consumer claims, including class actions, and are competent to evaluate 

the benefits and burdens of the proposed settlement in comparison with the potential recovery, 

complexity, risk and delay likely if this case were to be litigated to a final conclusion. 

27. Approximately 165,307 notices were mailed to identified Class members, over 

130,000 of which have been confirmed as received. Approximately 43,930 members have 

returned confirmation cards. Only two members filed opt-outs, and none filed a written 

objection. This extremely low level of opt-outs is an indication of the Class members’ 

acceptance of the settlement as fair and adequate.

28. After due consideration of the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 

the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement; the extent of discovery and the 

litigation stage at which settlement was reached; the recommendation and experience of 

counsel; the recommendation and experience of the mediator, Judge Infante; the concurrence 

of the California Attorney General; the future expenses and likely duration of litigation; the 

lack of opposition to the settlement; the presence of good faith and absence of collusion; all 

written submissions, affidavits, and arguments of counsel; and after notice and hearing, the 

Court finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. The Court also finds that the 

settlement terms fall within the range of settlement terms that are fair, adequate and 

reasonable in the circumstances of the Brailsford Action. Accordingly, the Settlement 

Agreement should be and is approved and shall govern all issues regarding the Settlement and 

all rights of the Parties, including the Class Members. 

29. The Court retains jurisdiction over implementation of the settlement so that it 

can assure that the settlement funds are distributed appropriately. 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 7 of 13
7

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

30. The service award of $5,000 to Pierre Brailsford is fair and reasonable. This 

service award will be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and shall be in addition to 

any recovery by the members of the Class. 

G. Attorneys’ Fees 

31. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) provides in pertinent part that “[i]n an action certified as a 

class action, the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs authorized 

by law or by agreement of the parties. . . .” 

32. The matter of attorneys’ fees in the instant litigation was not negotiated by the 

parties until an agreement had been reached and made as to the relief to be provided to the 

Class members. 

33. The Settlement Fund established through the Settlement Agreement is 

$672,615, plus the interest it has been earning since January 22, 2007, when it was placed in 

an interest-bearing escrow account by the Defendants. Class Counsel has requested an award 

of fees of $201,785 from the total Settlement Fund, plus $15,000 in costs, to be paid from the 

Settlement Fund. In the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed that they would not 

oppose a fee request up to the amount of $224,205 or a cost request up to $15,000, and they 

have filed a statement of non-opposition representing that they take no position in connection 

with the request by Class Counsel for an award of fees and costs.

34. District courts in this Circuit have discretion to award attorney fees in common 

fund class actions based on a lodestar or percentage of the fund method. In re Coordinated 

Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir. 1997). 

“The district court abuses its discretion when it uses a mechanical or formulaic approach that 

results in an unreasonable reward. As long as the fee award is reasonable and the district court 

adequately explains its determination by written order or in open court, adopting the 

percentage approach is not an abuse of discretion.” Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249. 1256 

(9th Cir. 2000). Further, a twenty-five percent award is the benchmark in this Circuit; a 

district court may exceed the benchmark if it makes clear how it arrives at the figure 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 8 of 13
8

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

ultimately awarded. Id. (citing Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th 

Cir. 1989)).

35. Class Counsel have submitted documentation to the Court of their efforts in 

pursuing the litigation, due diligence regarding documents and data obtained from the 

Defendants, and in the negotiation and implementation of the Settlement, and have submitted 

to the Court a summary of the time expenditures and expense reports for the various law firms 

comprising Class Counsel. The attorneys’ fees and costs requested appear fair and 

reasonable. In making this determination, the Court specifically finds that the following 

factors justify the fees and costs application: (a) this action was a significant factor in Jackson 

Hewitt’s agreement to resolve these matters with the Attorney General and establish the 

Redress Fund with the agreed upon sum for payment to Jackson Hewitt customers, so that the 

amount recovered for the benefit of class members effectively exceeds the $672,615 recovery 

negotiated by Class Counsel; (b) the novelty, complexity, scope and potential duration of the 

litigation, as well as the risk of nonpayment assumed by Class Counsel, are all significant; (c) 

Class Counsel are experienced, well-recognized lawyers who have provided excellent 

representation and have pursued a fair resolution, (d) the time submissions are reasonable 

given the level of work involved and in light of the nature and duration of the litigation, (e) 

the attorneys’ rates are reasonable and appropriate for attorneys of comparable skill and 

experience, (f) the matter of attorneys’ fees was not negotiated by the parties at all until an 

agreement had been reached and made as to the relief to be provided to the Class members, 

and (g) the award is justified under a percentage of the recovery analysis and is well within a 

reasonable range. 

Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and for good cause appearing, it is 

therefore ORDERED:

A. Class Certification 

1. For settlement purposes only, the Class defined above is hereby certified.

2. The Class Representative and Class Counsel referenced above shall continue as 

Class Representative and Class Counsel.

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 9 of 13
9

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

B. Class Notice 

3. The Court re-approves the Mailed Notice as the Class Notice previously mailed 

to the Class members. The Court further finds and determines that Class Notice fully and 

accurately informed Class members of all material elements of the action, the proposed 

settlement and their alternatives with respect to the same, and that the notice constituted valid, 

due and sufficient notice to all Class members, as well as the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances. 

4. Based upon the Settlement Agreement, the declarations of counsel and the 

Claims Administrator, and the other evidence and testimony adduced at the Fairness Hearing, 

the Court is satisfied that appropriate efforts to identify and locate the members of the 

Settlement Class were made. 

C. Final Approval 

5. The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the 

settlement is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the Class members. 

6. The Court orders the parties to perform their obligations pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order. 

D. Validity of Opt-Outs 

7. The Court hereby voids any requests for exclusion which were not received by 

the Claims Administrator or postmarked as of April 7, 2007. 

E. Release of Claims 

8. The Class Representative and all Class Members who have not timely 

submitted opt-outs release and discharge the Defendants from, and shall not now or hereafter 

institute, participate in, maintain, maintain a right to or assert against the Defendants, either 

directly or indirectly, on their own behalf, or on behalf of the Class or any other person or 

entity, any and all causes of action, claims, damages, awards, equitable, legal and 

administrative relief, interest, demands or rights, including, without limitation, claims for 

rescission, restitution for all damages of any kind, including those in excess of actual 

damages, and claims for mental anguish, whether based on federal, state or local law, statute, 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 10 of 13
10

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

ordinance, regulation, contract, common law, or any other source, that have been, could have 

been, may be or could be alleged or asserted now or in the future by the Class Representative 

or any Class Member against the Defendants or any of them in this Action in connection with 

the purchases of RALs in California between December 23, 2001 and December 23, 2005.

Excluded from the Release are any claims for any debt collection activity relating to RALs, as 

well as claims made under state law based solely on allegations that a tax preparer failed to 

properly prepare a tax return. 

9. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal is without cost to 

any party except as specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement. 

10. The Class Representative and all Class Members, other than those who have 

submitted timely, valid opt-out requests, are bound by the release provisions contained in the 

Settlement Agreement and this Order, and to the extent there provided, have released and 

discharged the Defendants from any and all claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

11. The Court bars and permanently enjoins the Class Representative and all Class 

members, other than those who have submitted timely, valid opt-out requests, from asserting, 

instituting or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any claims released pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement. 

F. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

12. The Court approves the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount 

of $216,785 to be paid out of the Settlement Fund as of the date of distribution. 

13. The service award of $5,000 to Pierre Brailsford is authorized and approved, 

and is ordered to be paid by the Defendants pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and shall 

be in addition to any recovery by the Class. 

G. Other Provisions 

 14. Neither this Order and Final Judgment, nor the Stipulation of Settlement, nor 

any of their terms or provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with 

them, nor any of the documents or statements created in furtherance of the negotiations, shall 

be:

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 11 of 13
11

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

 (a) offered or received as evidence of the truth of any allegation or the 

validity of any claim that has been or could have been made or asserted against any of the 

Defendants in this action or any other litigation, or the deficiency of any defense that has been 

or could have been asserted in this action or in any other litigation; 

 (b) offered or received as evidence of any liability, negligence, fault, or 

wrongdoing on the part of any of the Defendants, or deemed to give rise to any presumption 

with respect to any liability, negligence, fault or wrongdoing on the part of the any of 

Defendants; or 

 (c) deemed as an admission or concession by any of Defendants that the 

consideration to be paid pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement represents the amount which 

would be or would have been recovered after trial. 

 Neither the Stipulation of Settlement, nor this Order and Final Judgment, nor the fact 

of the Settlement, is an admission or evidence of any violation of any statute or law or of any 

liability or wrongdoing by any of Defendants or of the truth of allegations made against any 

of the Defendants in this case or any other action. This Order is not a finding of the validity 

or invalidity of any claims in this action or of any wrongdoing of any of Defendants." 

15. The parties and their counsel have complied with the requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11 as to all proceedings herein. 

16. The parties will use their good faith efforts to cause the redress to be fully and 

completely provided to the members of the Class to which they are entitled under the 

provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Order on or before June 16, 2007, subject to 

an extension of that deadline based upon unforeseen circumstances which may cause the 

parties to be unable to meet that deadline. The parties will report the status of the distribution 

of redress to the Class members to the Court by November 15, 2007. 

17. Without further order of this Court, the parties may agree to reasonable 

extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 12 of 13
12

AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER, Case No.: C 06-00700 CW 

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

H. Continuing Jurisdiction 

18. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any manner, the Court retains 

jurisdiction over: (a) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement pursuant 

to further orders of the Court, until such time as the final judgment contemplated hereby has 

become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto shall 

have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, including the payments from the 

Settlement Fund and the relief to be granted to the Class members, (b) any other action 

necessary to conclude this settlement and implement the Settlement Agreement, (c) the 

enforcement, construction and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, including but not 

limited to, any disputes concerning Class members’ release of claims, and (d) the 

determination of validity of opt-outs, if called upon to make that judicial determination. 

19. The Court finds that no just cause exists for delay in entering this Order. 

Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to enter this Order pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54 (b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 5/3/07 

DATED: ___________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 The Honorable Claudia Wilken 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 4:06-cv-00700-CW Document 71 Filed 05/03/07 Page 13 of 13